Tác động của công cụ trí tuệ nhân tạo tạo sinh đến kết quả học tập và năng lực số môn Tin học của học sinh trung học phổ thông
Tóm tắt
The application of artificial intelligence into educational environments is inevitable; however, the effective implementation process continues to pose obstacles. This study evaluates the impact of GenAI tools, specifically GitHub Copilot, Poe, and Gemini, on the teaching of Grade 11 Informatics at the Can Tho University Elite High School. A quasi-experimental approach was employed, using a pretest-posttest design with 69 students. The results showed that the experimental group achieved a higher average posttest score compared to the control group. Furthermore, the study also noted improvements in students’ digital competence and AI ethical awareness, measured based on the DigComp 2.2 framework. The study confirms that GenAI serves as a cognitive scaffold, helping to reduce the burden of technical requirements for learners, thereby facilitating focus on developing computational thinking. Practically, this provides a reference framework for educators. Future studies should expand the sample size, diversify teaching contexts, and assess the long-term impacts of GenAI on the process of cultivating digital competence.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Becker, B. A., Denny, P., Finnie-Ansley, J., Luxton-Reilly, A., Prather, J., & Santos, E. A. (2023). Programming Is Hard - Or at Least It Used to Be: Educational Opportunities and Challenges of AI Code Generation. Proceedings of the 54th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education V. 1, 500-506. https://doi.org/10.1145/3545945.3569759
Bộ GD-ĐT (2025). Thông tư số 02/2025/TT-BGDĐT quy định Khung năng lực số cho người học.
Chan, C. K. Y., & Lee, K. K. W. (2023). The AI generation gap: Are Gen Z students more interested in adopting generative AI such as ChatGPT in teaching and learning than their Gen X and millennial generation teachers? Smart Learning Environments, 10(1), 60. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-023-00269-3
Chiu, T. K. F. (2024). The impact of Generative AI (GenAI) on practices, policies and research direction in education: A case of ChatGPT and Midjourney. Interactive Learning Environments, 32(10), 6187-6203. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2023.2253861
Cohen, J. (1988). Set Correlation and Contingency Tables. Applied Psychological Measurement, 12(4), 425-434. https://doi.org/10.1177/014662168801200410
Cukurova, M. (2025). The interplay of learning, analytics and artificial intelligence in education: A vision for hybrid intelligence. British Journal of Educational Technology, 56(2), 469-488. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13514
Finnie-Ansley, J., Denny, P., Becker, B. A., Luxton-Reilly, A., & Prather, J. (2022). The Robots Are Coming: Exploring the Implications of OpenAI Codex on Introductory Programming. Proceedings of the 24th Australasian Computing Education Conference, 10-19. https://doi.org/10.1145/3511861.3511863
Giannakos, M., Azevedo, R., Brusilovsky, P., Cukurova, M., Dimitriadis, Y., Hernandez-Leo, D., Järvelä, S., Mavrikis, M., & Rienties, B. (2025). The promise and challenges of generative AI in education. Behaviour & Information Technology, 44(11), 2518-2544. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2024.2394886
Hake, R. R. (1998). Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. American Journal of Physics, 66(1), 64-74. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.18809
Kasneci, E., Sessler, K., Küchemann, S., Bannert, M., Dementieva, D., Fischer, F., Gasser, U., Groh, G., Günnemann, S., Hüllermeier, E., Krusche, S., Kutyniok, G., Michaeli, T., Nerdel, C., Pfeffer, J., Poquet, O., Sailer, M., Schmidt, A., Seidel, T., … 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
Liu, R., Zenke, C., Liu, C., Holmes, A., Thornton, P., & Malan, D. J. (2024). Teaching CS50 with AI: Leveraging Generative Artificial Intelligence in Computer Science Education. Proceedings of the 55th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education V. 1, 750-756. https://doi.org/10.1145/3626252.3630938
Maier, U., & Klotz, C. (2022). Personalized feedback in digital learning environments: Classification framework and literature review. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 3, 100080. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2022.100080
Miao, F., & Holmes, W. (2023). Guidance for generative AI in education and research. UNESCO. https://doi.org/10.54675/EWZM9535
Prather, J., Reeves, B. N., Denny, P., Becker, B. A., Leinonen, J., Luxton-Reilly, A., Powell, G., Finnie-Ansley, J., & Santos, E. A. (2024). “It’s Weird That it Knows What I Want”: Usability and Interactions with Copilot for Novice Programmers. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 31(1), 1-31. https://doi.org/10.1145/3617367
Sawilowsky, S. S. (2009). New Effect Size Rules of Thumb. Journal of Modern Applied Statistical Methods, 8(2), 597-599. https://doi.org/10.22237/jmasm/1257035100
Thai, N. T. T., De Wever, B., & Valcke, M. (2024). Providing Feedback during the Online Phase of a Flipped Classroom Design: Fostering Sustainable Learning Performance While Considering Study Time Management. Sustainability, 16(7), 3089. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16073089
Van Audenhove, L., Vermeire, L., Van Den Broeck, W., & Demeulenaere, A. (2024). Data literacy in the new EU DigComp 2.2 framework how DigComp defines competences on artificial intelligence, internet of things and data. Information and Learning Sciences, 125(5/6), 406-436. https://doi.org/10.1108/ILS-06-2023-0072
Vuorikari, R., Kluzer, S., & Punie, Y. (2022). DigComp 2.2, The Digital Competence framework for citizens: With new examples of knowledge, skills and attitudes. Publications Office. https://doi.org/10.2760/115376
Wu, D., & Zhang, J. (2025). Generative artificial intelligence in secondary education: Applications and effects on students’ innovation skills and digital literacy. PLOS One, 20(5), e0323349. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0323349
Zamfirescu-Pereira, J. D., Wong, R. Y., Hartmann, B., & Yang, Q. (2023). Why Johnny Can’t Prompt: How Non-AI Experts Try (and Fail) to Design LLM Prompts. Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1145/3544548.3581388
Tải xuống
Đã Xuất bản
Cách trích dẫn
Số
Chuyên mục
Giấy phép
Bản quyền (c) 2026 Tạp chí Giáo dục
Tác phẩm này được cấp phép theo Ghi nhận tác giả của Creative Commons Giấy phép quốc tế 4.0 .
