Định hướng thiết kế hoạt động học tập với trí tuệ nhân tạo tạo sinh trong đào tạo giáo viên: Bảo toàn nỗ lực nhận thức, phán đoán sư phạm và liêm chính học thuật
Tóm tắt
Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) is increasingly used in education and teacher education. However, its educational value depends not only on tool capability, but also on how teachers design learning activities, schedule the timing of AI support, organise feedback, and require evidence of learners’ thinking processes. This article is a design-oriented theoretical review based on a targeted integrative synthesis of selected studies from the learning sciences, cognitive psychology, artificial intelligence in education, teacher education, and relevant Vietnamese policy documents. The article does not report new empirical data; instead, it proposes a conceptual framework and seven pedagogical control points for designing learning activities with GenAI in teacher education. The framework foregrounds the preservation of essential cognitive operations, including prediction, explanation, retrieval, verification, error correction, transfer, and reflection. The article argues that teacher education in Vietnam should move beyond helping teachers simply “use AI” toward developing pedagogical judgement with AI, responsible learning-task design, academic integrity, and assessment of learning-process evidence. The proposed framework should be examined further through design-based research and empirical studies in teacher education courses.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Alfarwan, A. (2025). Generative AI use in K-12 education: a systematic review. Frontiers in Education, 10, 1647573. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2025.1647573
Bastani, H., Bastani, O., Sungu, A., Ge, H., Kabakcı, Ö., & Mariman, R. (2025). Generative AI without guardrails can harm learning: Evidence from high school mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 122(26), e2422633122. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2422633122
Biesta, G. J. J. (2015). What is education for? On good education, teacher judgement, and educational professionalism. European Journal of Education, 50(1), 75-87. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12109
Bộ GD-ĐT (2025). Quy định Khung năng lực số cho người học (ban hành kèm theo Thông tư số 02/2025/TT-BGDĐT ngày 24/01/2025 của Bộ trưởng Bộ GD-ĐT).
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
Chi, M. T. H., & Wylie, R. (2014). The ICAP framework: Linking cognitive engagement to active learning outcomes. Educational Psychologist, 49(4), 219-243. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2014.965823
Dillenbourg, P. (2013). Design for classroom orchestration. Computers & Education, 69, 485-492. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.04.013
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81-112. https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487
Hoàng Thị Thu Hà, Đặng Khánh Linh, Nguyễn Thu Hà, Nguyễn Ngọc Lan, Tô Thảo Hương, Phạm Xuân Thiện. (2024). Các nhân tố tác động đến “liêm chính học thuật” của sinh viên đại học trong bối cảnh phát triển trí tuệ nhân tạo. Tạp chí Giáo dục, 24(10), 47-52. https://tcgd.tapchigiaoduc.edu.vn/index.php/tapchi/article/view/1870
Holmes, W., & Tuomi, I. (2022). State of the art and practice in AI in education. European Journal of Education, 57(4), 542-570. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12533
Kapur, M. (2008). Productive failure. Cognition and Instruction, 26(3), 379-424. https://doi.org/10.1080/0737
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., Pfeiffer, F., Poquet, O., Sailer, M., Schmidt, A., Seidel, T., Stadler, M., & 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
Kestin, G., Miller, K., Klales, A., Milbourne, T., & Ponti, G. (2025). AI tutoring outperforms in-class active learning: An RCT introducing a novel research-based design in an authentic educational setting. Scientific Reports, 15, 17458. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-97652-6
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00684.x
Molenaar, I. (2022). Towards hybrid human-AI learning technologies. European Journal of Education, 57(4), 632-645. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12527
Nguyễn Ngọc Bích, Đậu Thị Như Quỳnh, Nguyễn Thanh Huyền, Hồ Ngọc Huyền. (2026). Một số yếu tố ảnh hưởng đến năng lực số của sinh viên sư phạm Toán tại các trường đại học. Tạp chí Giáo dục, 26(01), 53-58. https://tcgd.tapchigiaoduc.edu.vn/index.php/tapchi/article/view/4657
OECD (2026). OECD digital education outlook 2026: Exploring effective uses of generative AI in education. OECD Publishing. https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/oecd-digital-education-outlook-2026_062a7394-en.html
Ogunleye, B., Zakariyyah, K. I., Ajao, O., Olayinka, O., & Sharma, H. (2024). A systematic review of generative AI for teaching and learning practice. Education Sciences, 14(6), 636. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14060636
Roediger, H. L., & Karpicke, J. D. (2006). Test-enhanced learning: Taking memory tests improves long-term retention. Psychological Science, 17(3), 249-255. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01693.x
Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1-22. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.57.1.j463w79r56455411
Snyder, H. (2019). Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 104, 333-339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.07.039
Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12(2), 257-285. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1202_4
Sweller, J., van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. (2019). Cognitive architecture and instructional design: 20 years later. Educational Psychology Review, 31, 261-292. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09465-5
Torraco, R. J. (2005). Writing integrative literature reviews: Guidelines and examples. Human Resource Development Review, 4(3), 356-367. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484305278283
Trần Trung, Phạm Kim Chung, Nguyễn Thu Phương (2025). Kiến tạo hệ sinh thái giáo dục số: Cấu trúc và mô hình. Tạp chí Giáo dục, 25(5), 1-6. https://tcgd.tapchigiaoduc.edu.vn/index.php/tapchi/article/view/2982
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology (2023). Artificial intelligence and the future of teaching and learning: Insights and recommendations. U.S. Department of Education.
UNESCO (2024). AI competency framework for teachers. UNESCO. https://doi.org/10.54675/ZJTE2084
UNESCO (2025). Việt Nam: Đánh giá mức độ sẵn sàng của Việt Nam trong việc thực hiện Khuyến nghị của UNESCO về đạo đức trí tuệ nhân tạo. UNESCO.
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, 39. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-019-0171-0
Zhang, X., Zhang, P., Shen, Y., Liu, M., Wang, Q., Gašević, D., & Fan, Y. (2024). A systematic literature review of empirical research on applying generative artificial intelligence in education. Frontiers of Digital Education, 1(3), 223-245. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44366-024-0028-5
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 .
