CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 7AI in Service InteractionsArtificial Intelligence in EducationHigher Education Research Studies

Ni máquina, ni humano ni disponible: Do College Admissions Offices Use Chatbots and Can They Speak Spanish?

Open access
Taylor, Z.W., Eguiluz, Linda, Wheeler, Paige-Erin·2022·Journal of Communication Technology
DOI 10.51548/joctec-2022-009
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Colleges continue to use technology to connect students to information, but a research gap exists regarding how colleges use a ubiquitous technology in the business world: chatbots. Moreover, no work has addressed whether chatbots address Spanish-speaking students seeking higher education in the form of automated (AI) chatbot responses in Spanish or Spanish-programmed chatbots. This study randomly sampled 331 United States institutions of higher education to learn if these institutions embed chatbots on their undergraduate admissions websites and if these chatbots have been programmed to speak Spanish. Results suggest 21% of institutions (n=71) embed chatbots into their admissions websites and only 28% of those chatbots (n= 20) were programmed to provide Spanish-language admissions information. Implications for college access and equity for English learners and L1 Spanish speakers are addressed.

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 · 10.51548/joctec-2022-009

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Many AI technology companies were created from a white, Anglocentric perspective, so the tools and features developed for chatbots are often built using English, rather than Spanish meant for Spanish speakers and Latinx people.

    “Research suggests that many AI technology companies were created from a white, Anglocentric perspective, so the tools and features developed for chatbots are often built using English, rather than Spanish meant for Spanish speakers and Latinx people (Taylor & Burnett, 2019;Taylor et al., 2022).”

    From Hispanic-Serving Institutions, Community Colleges, and Artificial Intelligence Chatbots: A Systematic Review and Interaction with HSI Community College Websites (2025) · cites this paper as Taylor et al., 2022

    The Major Themes section (around p. 92) describes English-only chatbots and English-language interfaces that limit access for Spanish speakers. The Discussion (p. 95) likewise says few U.S. higher-education institutions programmed their chatbots to speak Spanish. The paper does not establish that many AI companies were created from a white, Anglocentric perspective or that this caused chatbot features to be built in English; its findings concern college admissions chat services. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • The study supports Taylor et al. (2022), who found that it was common for institutions not to have staff who can maintain chatbots and answer live questions.

    “Our study supports Taylor et al. (2022), who found that it was common for institutions not to have staff who can maintain chatbots and answer live questions (Taylor et al., 2022).”

    From Hispanic-Serving Institutions, Community Colleges, and Artificial Intelligence Chatbots: A Systematic Review and Interaction with HSI Community College Websites (2025) · cites this paper as Taylor et al., 2022

    In “Chatbots Programmed in Spanish (With Varying Levels of Fluency)” (around p. 93), the study reports that 14 live-chat functions received no response within half an hour or had no operator online when tested. That supports a finding of unavailable live assistance, but the paper does not establish that institutions lacked staff to maintain chatbots or that staffing shortages caused the unanswered questions. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Taylor et al. (2022) found that few institutional websites provided Spanish language admissions information and only 5.7% (19 of 331) of institutions with chatbots could provide information in Spanish, with even fewer chatbots elevating users to a human agent who can communicate in Spanish.

    “They found that few institutional websites provided Spanish language admissions information and only 5.7% (19 of 331) of institutions with chatbots could provide information in Spanish, with even fewer chatbots elevating users to a human agent who can communicate in Spanish (Taylor et al., 2022).”

    From Hispanic-Serving Institutions, Community Colleges, and Artificial Intelligence Chatbots: A Systematic Review and Interaction with HSI Community College Websites (2025) · cites this paper as Taylor et al., 2022

    The Results (p. 90) report that few admissions webpages offered non-English content. Table 2 reports 19 Spanish-capable chatbots among 71 institutions with chat functions (26.8%) and only 5 Spanish-fluent live-chat options (7.0%). The claim’s 19 of 331 (5.7%) uses the full institutional sample as its denominator, not the institutions with chatbots, so that qualifier is incorrect. (LLM, conf=0.90)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 45

  1. Auerbach, S. (2004). Engaging Latino parents in supporting college pathways: Lessons from a college access program. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 3(2), 125-145. https://doi.org/10.1177/1538192703262514 · DOI
  2. Banerjee, B. (2021). Smart student guide case of HUGI, a chatbot for education. (Publication No. 10024) [Master's thesis, Haaga-Helia University of Applied Sciences]. RefWorks. http://urn.fi/URN:NBN:fi:amk-2021060915260
  3. Burdett, K. R. (2013). How students choose a college: Understanding the role of internet based resources in the college choice process (UMI No. 3590306) [Doctoral dissertation, University of Nebraska at Lincoln]. ProQuest.
  4. Ceja, M. A. (2001). Applying, choosing, and enrolling in higher education: Understanding the college choice process of first-generation Chicana students (Accession No. 4704482) [Doctoral dissertation, University of California-Los Angeles]. UCLA Library Catalog.
  5. Collatos, A., Morrell, E., Nuno, A., & Lara, R. (2004). Critical sociology in K-16 early intervention: Remaking Latino pathways to higher education. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 3(2), 164-179. https://doi.org/10.1177/1538192704262989 · DOI
  6. Cook, A., Pérusse, R., & Rojas, E. D. (2012). Increasing academic achievement and college-going rates for Latina/o English language learners: A survey of school counselor interventions. The Journal of Counselor Preparation and Supervision, 4(2), 24-40.
  7. Fann, A., McClafferty Jarsky, K., & McDonough, P. M. (2009). Parent involvement in the college planning process: A case study of P-20 collaboration. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 8(4), 373-394. https://doi.org/10.1177/1538192709347847 · DOI
  8. Ferris, D. R. (2009). Defining L2 student audiences. In D. R. Ferris (Ed.), Teaching college writing top diverse student populations (pp. 3-24). University of Michigan.
  9. Flores, S. M., & Drake, T. A. (2014). Does English language learner (ELL) identification predict college remediation designation?: A comparison by race and ethnicity, and ELL waiver status. The Review of Higher Education, 38(1), 1-36. https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2014.0041 · DOI
  10. Goff, B., Patino, V., & Jackson, G. (2004). Preferred information sources of high school students for community colleges and universities. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 28(10), 795-803. https://doi.org/10.1080/10668920390276957 · DOI
  11. Gonzalez, L. M., Villalba, J. A., & Borders, L. D. (2015). Spanish-speaking immigrant parents and their children: Reflections on the path to college. Journal of Humanistic Counseling, 54(2), 122-139. https://doi.org/10.1002/johc.12007 · DOI
  12. Grossnickle, B. (2019). Sunny: Arizona State University's Chatbot for Students. (Publication No. 5531) [Honors thesis, Arizona State University]. Honors College Thesis Collection. https://repository.asu.edu/items/55331
  13. Hartman, K. E. (1997). College selection and the Internet: Advice for schools, a wake-up call for colleges. Journal of College Admission, (154), 22-31.
  14. Hefny, E.W., Mansy Y., Abdallah, M., & Abdennadher, S. (2021) Jooka: A bilingual chatbot for university admission. In Rocha Á., Adeli H., Dzemyda G., Moreira F., Ramalho Correia A.M. (Eds.), Trends and applications in information systems and technologies. WorldCIST 2021. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, 1367. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-72660-7_64 · DOI · Paper page
  15. Hossler, D., & Gallagher, K. S. (1987). Studying student college choice: A three-phase model and the implications for policymakers. College and University, 62(3), 202-221.
  16. Io, H.N., & Lee, C.B. (2019) Understanding the Adoption of Chatbot. In Arai K., Kapoor S., Bhatia R. (Eds.), Advances in information and communication networks. FICC 2018. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, 8286, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3- 030-03402-3_44 · DOI
  17. Kanno, Y. (2018a). High-performing English learners' limited access to four-year college. Teachers College Record, 120(4), 1-46.
  18. Kanno, Y. (2018b). Non-college-bound English learners as the underserved third: How students graduate from high school neither college-nor career-ready. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 23(4), 336-358. https://doi.org/10.1080/10824669.2018.1516554 · DOI
  19. Kanno, Y., & Cromley, J. G. (2013). English language learners' access to and attainment in postsecondary education. TESOL Quarterly, 47(1), 89-121. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq. · DOI
  20. Kanno, Y., & Kangas, S. E.N. (2014). "I'm not going to be, like, for the AP" English language learners' limited access to advanced college-preparatory courses in high school. American Educational Research Journal, 51(5), 848-878. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831214544716 · DOI
  21. Kanno, Y., & Varghese, M. M. (2010). Immigrant and refugee ESL students' challenges to accessing four-year college education: From language policy to education policy. Journal of Language, Identity & Education, 9(5), 310-328. https://doi.org/10.1080/15348458.2010.517693 · DOI
  22. Lalwani, T., Bhalotia, S., Pal, A., Rathod, V., & Bisen, S. (2018). Implementation of a chatbot system using AI and NLP. International Journal of Innovative Research in Computer Science & Technology, 6(3), 1-5. https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3531782 · DOI
  23. Martinez, M. A., Cortez, L. J., & Saenz, V. B. (2013). Latino parents' perceptions of the role of schools in college readiness. Journal of Latinos and Education, 12(2), 108-120. https://doi.org/10.1080/15348431.2012.745402 · DOI
  24. McClafferty-Jarsky, K., McDonough, P. M., & Núñez, A.-M. (2009). Establishing a college culture in secondary schools through P-20 collaboration: A case study. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 8(4), 357-373. https://doi.org/10.1177/1538192709347846 · DOI
  25. Neelkumar, P.P., Parikh, D.R., Patel, D.A., & Patel, R.R. (2019). AI and web-based human-like interactive university chatbot (UNIBOT). Proceedings from 2019 3rd International conference on Electronics, Communication and Aerospace Technology (ICECA), 148-150. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICECA.2019.8822176 · DOI
  26. Núñez, A.-M., & Oliva, M. (2009). Organizational collaboration to promote college access: A P-20 framework. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 8(4), 322-339. https://doi.org/10.1177/1538192709347844 · DOI
  27. Núñez, A.-M., Rios-Aguilar, C., Kanno, Y., & Flores, S. M. (2016). English learners and their transition to postsecondary education. In M. B. Paulsen (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (Vol. 31, pp. 41-90). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319- 26829-3_2 · DOI
  28. Pérez, P. A., & McDonough, P. M. (2008). Understanding Latina and Latino college choice: A social capital and chain migration analysis. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 7(3), 249-265. https://doi.org/10.1177/1538192708317620 · DOI
  29. Peruta A., & Shields, A.B. (2017) Social media in higher education: understanding how colleges and universities use Facebook. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 27(1), 131-143, doi:10.1080/08841241.2016.1212451 · DOI
  30. Post, D. (1990). College-going decisions by Chicanos: The politics of misinformation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 12(2), 174-187. https://doi.org/10.2307/1163632 · DOI
  31. Robinson, C. (2019). Impressions of viability: How current enrollment management personnel and former students perceive the implementation of a chatbot focused on student financial communication. (Publication No. 2) [Doctoral dissertation, University of Southern Mississippi]. School of Education Doctoral Projects. https://aquila.usm.edu/highereddoctoralprojects/2/
  32. Ryan, S., & Ream, R. K. (2016). Variation across Hispanic immigrant generations in parent social capital, college-aligned actions, and four-year college enrollment. American Educational Research Journal, 53(4), 953-986. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831216656395 · DOI
  33. Santoso, H. A. (2018). Dinus intelligent assistance (DINA) chatbot for university admission services. 2018 International Seminar on Application for Technology of Information and Communication, 417-423. https://doi.org/10.1109/ISEMANTIC.2018.8549797 · DOI
  34. Sharma, R. M. (2019). Chatbot based college information system. International Journal of Multidisciplinary, 4(3), 109-112. https://rrjournals.com/wp- content/uploads/2019/03/109-112_RRIJM190403024.pdf
  35. Hofmann S., Müller O., & Rossi M. (Eds.), Designing for digital Transformation: Co- creating services with citizens and industry. DESRIST 2020. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 12388. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-64823-7_10 · DOI
  36. Taylor, Z. W. (2018). ¿Comprehenderán mis amigos y la familia? Analyzing Spanish translations of admission materials for Latina/o students applying to 4-year institutions in the United States. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1177/1538192718775478 · DOI
  37. Taylor, Z. W. (2019). Lost in translation: Linguistic hurdles facing students of color pursuing international education. Emerging Voices in Education, 1(1), 45-60.
  38. Taylor, Z. W., & Bicak, I. (2019a). Academic honesty, linguistic dishonesty: Analyzing the readability and translation of academic integrity and honesty policies at U.S. postsecondary institutions. Journal of Academic Ethics, 17(1), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-018-9321-6 · DOI
  39. Taylor, Z. W., & Bicak, I. (2019b). International, inaccessible, and incomplete: A Texas case study of international student websites. Journal of International Students, 9(4), 1009-1014. https://doi.org/10.32674/jis/v0i0.756 · DOI
  40. Taylor, Z. W., & Bicak, I. (2019c). What is the FAFSA? An adult learner knowledge survey of student financial aid jargon. Journal of Adult and Continuing Education, 25(1), 94-112. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1477971418824607 Taylor, Z. W., & Hartman, C. E. (2019). Linguistics as lemonade: Summer melt and the readability of admissions and financial aid materials. Strategic Enrollment Management Quarterly, 7(2), 35-40. · DOI
  41. Tierney, W. G. (2002). Parents and families in precollege preparation: The lack of connection between research and practice. Educational Policy, 16(4), 588-606. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904802016004007 · DOI
  42. Torrez, N. (2004). Developing parent information frameworks support college preparation for Latino students. The High School Journal, 87(3), 54-62.
  43. Venegas, K. M. (2006). Internet inequalities: Financial aid, the Internet, and low-income students. The American Behavioral Scientist, 49(12), 1652-1669. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764206289147 · DOI
  44. Venegas, K. M. (2007). The Internet and college access: Challenges for low-income students. American Academic, 3(1), 141-154.
  45. Taylor, Z. W., Eguiluz, L., & Wheeler, P.-E. (2022). Ni máquina, ni humano ni disponible: Do college admissions offices use chatbots and can they speak Spanish? Journal of Communication Technology, 5(2), 77-100. DOI: 10.51548/joctec-2022-009

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Taylor, Z. W., Eguiluz, L., & Wheeler, P.-E.
Affiliations
  • Texas State University (US)
  • Austin Community College (US)
  • The University of Texas at Austin (US)
Corresponding author
Taylor, Z.W.
ORCID
Wheeler, Paige-Erin
Venue
Journal of Communication Technology
Publisher
Journal of Communication Technology
Published
2022-08-22
Volume
5
Issue
2
Pages
72-94
ISSN
2694-3883 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.51548/joctec-2022-009
OpenAlex
W4294365733
Cited by
7
References
1
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1
FWCI
0.58
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc-sa
Locations
Journal of Communication Technology (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI in Service Interactions
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Artificial Intelligence in Education
  • Social Sciences › Education › Higher Education Research Studies
Keywords
chatbots, Spanish-speaking students, English language learners, college access, educational equity, artificial intelligence in higher education, multilingual support

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