Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 269

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 26 of the 26 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Exploring the Determinants of Artificial Intelligence (AI) Literacy: Digital Divide, Computational Thinking, Cognitive Absorption

Open access
Celik, Ismail·2023·Telematics and Informatics
DOI 10.1016/j.tele.2023.102026
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

To effectively utilize artificial intelligence (AI)-based technologies and realize their novel ethical issues, individuals must have a variety of knowledge and skills about AI. Such knowledge and skills have led to the emergence of AI literacy. Despite the importance of AI literacy in everyday life, little is known about its determinants. To better understand the determinants of AI literacy, we attempted to build a research model relying on previous research and different theoretical frameworks. The model incorporated digital divide, cognitive absorption, and computational thinking. As a major finding from the current study, we found out individuals with physical access to information and communication technologies (ICTs) are more expected to use and recognize AI. Also, motivation and skills in using ICTs enable individuals to better evaluate the outcomes of AI-based technologies. The findings also showed that convenient access to ICTs contributes to a deep involvement with AI-based technologies in the use. Further, individuals with higher motivation and skills to use AI technologies are likely to have a pleasant experience after using these technologies. Moreover, computational thinking was found to be significant a determinant of AI literacy, which facilitate using, recognizing, and evaluating AI-based technologies.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.tele.2023.102026

Cites

26 of 26 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 26 references

Research works printed but not linked: 62

  1. Acharya, N., Sassenberg, A. M., & Soar, J. (2022). Effects of cognitive absorption on continuous use intention of AI-driven recommender systems in ecommerce.Foresight, (ahead-of-print). · DOI
  2. Ali, S., Payne, B. H., Williams, R., Park, H. W., & Breazeal, C. (2019). Constructionism, ethics, and creativity: Developing primary and middle school artificial intelligence education. In International workshop on education in artificial intelligence K-12 (EDUAI’19) (pp. 1–4).
  3. Aho, 2012, Computation and computational thinking, Comp. j., 55, 832, 10.1093/comjnl/bxs074 · DOI · Paper page
  4. Ashfaq, 2020, I, Chatbot: Modeling the determinants of users’ satisfaction and continuance intention of AI-powered service agents, Telematics Inform., 54, 10.1016/j.tele.2020.101473 · DOI · Paper page
  5. Aydin, 2021, Does the digital divide matter? Factors and conditions that promote ICT literacy, Telematics Inform., 58, 10.1016/j.tele.2020.101536 · DOI
  6. Bozoglan, 2014, Problematic Internet use: Functions of use, cognitive absorption, and depression, Comput. Hum. Behav., 37, 117, 10.1016/j.chb.2014.04.042 · DOI
  7. Cakıroglu, 2021, Understanding students’ abstractions in block-based programming environments: A performance-based evaluation, Think. Skills Creat., 41
  8. Celik, I., & Muukkonen, H. (2023). Understanding and predicting teachers' ıntention to use educational chatbots. InProceedings of the 17th International Conference of the Learning Sciences-ICLS 2023. International Society of the Learning Sciences. · DOI
  9. Celik, 2021, A model for understanding new media literacy: Epistemological beliefs and social media use, Libr. Inf. Sci. Res., 43, 10.1016/j.lisr.2021.101125 · DOI
  10. Celik, 2023, Response of learning analytics to the online education challenges during pandemic: Opportunities and key examples in higher education, Policy Futures in Education, 21, 387, 10.1177/14782103221078401 · DOI
  11. Chang, 2016, A three-tier ICT access model for intention to participate online: a comparison of developed and developing countries, Inf. Dev., 32, 226, 10.1177/0266666914529294 · DOI
  12. Chung, 2020, Chatbot e-service and customer satisfaction regarding luxury brands, J. Bus. Res., 117, 587, 10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.10.004 · DOI
  13. CSTA, ISTE. Operational definition of computational thinking for K-12 education. http://csta.acm.org/Curriculum/sub/CurrFiles/CompThinkingFlyer.pdf.
  14. Davenport, 2018, Artificial intelligence for the real world, Harv. Bus. Rev., 96, 108
  15. Dohn, 2022, Survey: Artificial Intelligence, computational thinking and learning, KI-Künstliche Intelligenz, 36, 5, 10.1007/s13218-021-00751-5 · DOI
  16. Dowling, 2023, ChatGPT for (finance) research: The Bananarama conjecture, Financ. Res. Lett., 53, 10.1016/j.frl.2023.103662 · DOI · Paper page
  17. Eguchi, 2021, Contextualizing AI education for K-12 students to enhance their learning of AI literacy through culturally responsive approaches, KI-Künstliche Intelligenz, 35, 153, 10.1007/s13218-021-00737-3 · DOI
  18. Faruqe, 2021, Competency model approach to AI literacy: Research-based path from initial framework to model. arXiv preprint, arXiv:2108.05809. 10.48550/arXiv, 2108.05809 · DOI
  19. Feher, 2021, Fifteen shadows of socio-cultural AI: A systematic review and future perspectives, Futures, 132, 10.1016/j.futures.2021.102817 · DOI
  20. Fornell, 1981, Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error, J. Mark. Res., 18, 39, 10.1177/002224378101800104 · DOI · Paper page
  21. Gedrimiene, E., Celik, I., Mäkitalo, K., & Muukkonen, H. (2023). Transparency and trustworthiness in user intentions to follow career recommendations from a learning analytics tool.Journal of Learning Analytics,10(1), 54-70. 10.18608/jla.2023.7791. · DOI
  22. Ghallab, 2019, Responsible AI: requirements and challenges, AI Perspectives, 1, 1, 10.1186/s42467-019-0003-z · DOI · Paper page
  23. Grover, 2013, Computational thinking in K–12: A review of the state of the field, Edu. res., 42, 38, 10.3102/0013189X12463051 · DOI
  24. Guha, 2021, How artificial intelligence will affect the future of retailing, J. Retail., 97, 28, 10.1016/j.jretai.2021.01.005 · DOI · Paper page
  25. Hooper, 2008, Structural equation modeling: guidelines for determining model fit, Electron. J. Bus. Res. Methods, 6, 53
  26. Hooshyar, 2022, Effects of technology-enhanced learning approaches on learners with different prior learning attitudes and knowledge in computational thinking, Comput. Appl. Eng. Educ., 30, 64
  27. Hou, 2019, The involvement paradox: the role of cognitive absorption in mobile instant messaging user satisfaction, Ind. Manag. Data Syst., 119, 881, 10.1108/IMDS-06-2018-0245 · DOI
  28. Hu, 1999, Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives, Struct. Equ. Model. Multidiscip. J., 6, 1, 10.1080/10705519909540118 · DOI · Paper page
  29. Jumaan, 2020, The role of cognitive absorption in predicting mobile internet users’ continuance intention: An extension of the expectation-confirmation model, Technol. Soc., 63, 10.1016/j.techsoc.2020.101355 · DOI
  30. Kale, 2018, Contextual factors influencing access to teaching computational thinking, Comput. Sch., 35, 69, 10.1080/07380569.2018.1462630 · DOI
  31. Kline, 2023, Principles and practice of structural equation modeling, Guilford
  32. Kong, 2021, Evaluation of an artificial intelligence literacy course for university students with diverse study backgrounds, Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 2
  33. Kong, 2021, Evaluation of an artificial intelligence literacy course for university students with diverse study backgrounds, Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 2, 100026
  34. Korkmaz, 2017, A validity and reliability study of the computational thinking scales (CTS), Comp. human behav., 72, 558, 10.1016/j.chb.2017.01.005 · DOI · Paper page
  35. Lozano, 2021, Perception of artificial intelligence in Spain, Telematics Inform., 63
  36. Lutz, 2019, Digital inequalities in the age of artificial intelligence and big data, Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies, 1, 141, 10.1002/hbe2.140 · DOI · Paper page
  37. Marler, 2018, Mobile phones and inequality: Findings, trends, and future directions, New Media Soc., 20, 3498, 10.1177/1461444818765154 · DOI
  38. Occa, 2022, The role of cognitive absorption in the persuasiveness of multimedia messages, Comput. Educ., 176, 10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104363 · DOI
  39. Pan, 2016, Heading toward artificial intelligence 2.0, Engineering, 2, 409, 10.1016/J.ENG.2016.04.018 · DOI
  40. Pérez-Mercado, 2023, ChatbotSQL: Conversational agent to support relational database query language learning, SoftwareX, 22, 10.1016/j.softx.2023.101346 · DOI
  41. Quaicoe, 2020, Teachers’ digital literacy and digital activity as digital divide components among basic schools in Ghana, Educ. Inf. Technol., 25, 4077, 10.1007/s10639-020-10158-8 · DOI · Paper page
  42. Radovanović, 2015, Overcoming digital divides in higher education: Digital literacy beyond Facebook, New Media Soc., 17, 1733, 10.1177/1461444815588323 · DOI
  43. Rajam, 2021, Explaining caste-based digital divide in India, Telematics Inform., 65, 10.1016/j.tele.2021.101719 · DOI
  44. Román-González, 2017, Which cognitive abilities underlie computational thinking? Criterion validity of the Computational Thinking Test, Computers in human behavior, 72, 678, 10.1016/j.chb.2016.08.047 · DOI
  45. Saadé, 2005, The impact of cognitive absorption on perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use in on-line learning: an extension of the technology acceptance model, Inf. Manag., 42, 317, 10.1016/j.im.2003.12.013 · DOI · Paper page
  46. Selby, C. C., & Woollard, J. (2013). Computational thinking: The developing definition. In Paper presented at the 18th annual conference on innovation and technology in computer science education, Canterbury.
  47. Selby, C. C. (2015). Relationships: computational thinking, pedagogy of programming, and bloom’s taxonomy. In Proceedings of the Workshop in Primary and Secondary Computing Education on ZZZ (pp. 80–87). New York: ACM. · DOI
  48. Shute, 2017, Demystifying computational thinking, Educ. Res. Rev., 22, 142, 10.1016/j.edurev.2017.09.003 · DOI · Paper page
  49. Sigayret, 2022, Unplugged or plugged-in programming learning: A comparative experimental study, Comput. Educ., 184, 10.1016/j.compedu.2022.104505 · DOI
  50. Soomro, 2018, Development of an instrument to measure Faculty’s information and communication technology access (FICTA), Educat. inform. tech., 23, 253, 10.1007/s10639-017-9599-9 · DOI
  51. Tanaka, 1985, A fit index for covariance structure models under arbitrary GLS estimation, Br. J. Math. Stat. Psychol., 38, 197, 10.1111/j.2044-8317.1985.tb00834.x · DOI · Paper page
  52. Ung, 2022, Computational thinking for teachers: Development of a localised E-learning system, Comput. Educ., 177, 10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104379 · DOI
  53. Usluel, 2009, Adaptation of cognitive absorption scale to Turkish, Ankara University Journal of Faculty of Educational Sciences (JFES), 42, 77
  54. van der Zeeuw, 2019, Inequalities in the social use of the Internet of things: A capital and skills perspective, New Media Soc., 21, 1344, 10.1177/1461444818821067 · DOI
  55. van Deursen, 2012, Proposing a survey instrument for measuring operational, formal, information, and strategic internet skills, International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 28, 827, 10.1080/10447318.2012.670086 · DOI
  56. van Dijk, 2006, Digital divide research, achievements and shortcomings, Poetics, 34, 221, 10.1016/j.poetic.2006.05.004 · DOI · Paper page
  57. Wang, 2019, Artificial intelligence, machine learning, automation, robotics, future of work and future of humanity: A review and research agenda, J. Database Manag., 30, 61, 10.4018/JDM.2019010104 · DOI · Paper page
  58. Wang, 2021, Bridging the digital divide: the smart TV as a platform for digital literacy among the elderly, Behav. Inform. Technol., 1–14
  59. Wendy Zhu, 2014, An empirical examination of guests’ adoption of interactive mobile technologies in hotels: Revisiting cognitive absorption, playfulness, and security, J. Hospitality and Tourism Tech., 5, 78, 10.1108/JHTT-09-2013-0029 · DOI
  60. Wu, 2021, Visual programming environments and computational thinking performance of fifth-and sixth-grade students, J. Educ. Comput. Res., 59, 1075, 10.1177/0735633120988807 · DOI
  61. Yadav, 2016, Computational thinking for all: Pedagogical approaches to embedding a 21st century problem solving in K-12 classrooms, Tech Trends, 60, 565, 10.1007/s11528-016-0087-7 · DOI · Paper page
  62. Yuan, 2021, An innovative and interactive teaching model for cultivating talent’s digital literacy in decision making, sustainability, and computational thinking, Sustainability, 13, 5117, 10.3390/su13095117 · DOI

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Celik, I.
Venue
Telematics and Informatics
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2023-09
Volume
83
Pages
102026
ISSN
0736-5853 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.tele.2023.102026
OpenAlex
W4385269673
Cited by
269
References
26
FWCI
63.21
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid
Licence

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.