VERS UNE LITTÉRATIE NUMÉRIQUE POUR UN USAGE RESPONSABLE DE L’INTELLIGENCE ARTIFICIELLE GÉNÉRATIVE DANS LES UNIVERSITÉS / TOWARDS DIGITAL LITERACY FOR THE RESPONSIBLE USE OF GENERATIVE ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE IN UNIVERSITIES
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.46827/ejoe.v11i2.7009Schlagwörter:
pédagogie universitaire, éthique en recherche, intelligence artificielle générative, littératie numérique / university pedagogy, research ethics, generative artificial intelligence, digital literacyAbstract
Les pratiques pédagogiques et la recherche dans l’enseignement supérieur et universitaire subissent des mutations notables depuis le début de la révolution de l’intelligence artificielle Générative (IAG). Les enseignants, les étudiants et gestionnaires recourent aux outils numériques de l’IAG pour programmer les enseignements, les dispenser, les apprendre et les évaluer. Une innovation éducative certes, mais qui soulève encore des enjeux éthiques, épistémiques et sociétaux majeurs. Par une recension de la littérature, cette étude vise à explorer la structuration scientifique des recherches sur l’IAG éducative publiées entre 2021 et 2025, en mettant l’accent sur la notion de littératie numérique et l’usage responsable des technologies intelligentes. Un corpus de 70 publications internationales postées sur internet a été répertorié, codé dans SPSS, et les analyses descriptives et corrélationnelles ont été effectuées. Notamment, Une analyse thématique a été réalisée selon la méthode de Braun et Clarke et une analyse statistique complémentaire menée par les corrélations de Pearson, Spearman, α de Cronbach. Et les résultats révèlent une forte cohérence interne entre les dimensions méthodologiques, discursives et thématiques de ces publications. Par ailleurs, trois axes scientifiques s’imposent : un axe empirique et pédagogique centré sur l’apprentissage personnalisé ; un axe institutionnel axé sur la gouvernance et la qualité académique ; et un axe prospectif orienté vers l’éthique et l’inclusion. Et l’ensemble des corrélations significatives témoigne d’une maturité croissante du domaine scientifique d’études sur l’IAG, où la littératie numérique devient le pivot conceptuel d’une éducation à l’IAG fondée sur la responsabilité, la réflexivité et la justice numérique.
Through a literature review, this study aims to examine the scientific structuring of research on educational GAI published between 2021 and 2025, with particular emphasis on digital literacy and the responsible use of intelligent technologies. A corpus of 70 international publications available online was identified, coded in SPSS, and analyzed using descriptive and correlational methods. A thematic analysis was conducted following Braun and Clarke’s approach, and complementary statistical analyses were performed using Pearson and Spearman correlations, as well as Cronbach’s alpha. The findings reveal strong internal coherence across the methodological, discursive, and thematic dimensions of these publications. Furthermore, three major scientific clusters emerge: an empirical and pedagogical cluster focused on personalized learning; an institutional cluster centered on governance and academic quality; and a prospective cluster oriented toward ethics and inclusion. Overall, the significant correlations indicate a growing maturity in the scientific field of GAI studies, where digital literacy becomes the conceptual cornerstone of GAI education grounded in responsibility, reflexivity, and digital justice.
Literaturhinweise
Akgun, S., & Greenhow, C. (2024). Artificial Intelligence Literacy in Higher Education: A Framework for Responsible Pedagogy. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence, 7(2), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.3389/frai.2024.129834
Ayele, T., & Kihoro, J. (2024). Digital sovereignty and inclusive artificial intelligence in African higher education: Challenges and prospects. Computers & Education: Artificial Intelligence, 6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2024.100209
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2021). Thematic Analysis: A Practical Guide. Sage Publications. Retrieved from https://www.sagepub.com/shop/buy-a-book/thematic-analysis-1-248481
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. Sage. Retrieved from https://books.google.ro/books/about/Research_Design.html?id=4uB76IC_pOQC&redir_esc=y
Chiu, T. K. F. (2022). Digital Literacy for AI-based Learning Environments: A Systematic Review. Computers & Education, 190(1).
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. Sage. Retrieved from https://books.google.ro/books?id=PViMtOnJ1LcC&printsec=frontcover&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false
Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2018). Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research (3rd ed.). Sage. Retrieved from https://books.google.ro/books/about/Designing_and_Conducting_Mixed_Methods_R.html?id=eTwmDwAAQBAJ&redir_esc=y
European Commission. (2021). Ethics Guidelines for Trustworthy AI. Brussels: EC Publications. Retrieved from https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/library/ethics-guidelines-trustworthy-ai
Floridi, L., & Cowls, J. (2019). A Unified Framework of Five Principles for AI in Society. Harvard Data Science Review, 1(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1162/99608f92.8cd550d1
Gilster, P. (1997). Digital Literacy. New York: Wiley. Retrieved from https://books.google.ro/books/about/Digital_Literacy.html?hl=id&id=ppVx7pHr07kC&redir_esc=y
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing Paradigms in Qualitative Research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.) Handbook of Qualitative Research, 105–117. Sage Publications, Inc. Retrieved from https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1994-98625-005
Holmes, W., Bialik, M., & Fadel, C. (2023). Artificial intelligence in education. In Data ethics: Building trust (pp. 621–650). Globethics Publications. https://doi.org/10.58863/20.500.12424/4276068
Kucirkova, N. (2023). Critical AI Literacy: A New Imperative for Educators. Computers & Education: Artificial Intelligence, 5(3).
Luckin, R., & Cukurova, M. (2019). Designing Educational Technologies for Responsible Learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(6), 2970–2986.
Markauskaite, L., & Goodyear, P. (2017). Epistemic Fluency and Professional Education. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4369-4
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., & Altman, D. G. (2015). Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. PLoS Medicine, 6(7). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097
Mulwani Makelele, B. et Ngoy Ndala, V. (2026). L’intelligence artificielle dans la pédagogie universitaire en Afrique : usages, perceptions et enjeux éthiques chez les étudiants. In Recherches Et Pratiques Psychologiques En Afrique. Paris: L’Harmattan
Mulwani Makelele, B., Sukadi Mangwa, C., and Nzuzi Mavungu, G. (2026). Integration of a Personalized Generative AI into University Instructional Design: Contributions, Uses, and Conditions for the Effectiveness of Active Learning Methods. American Journal of Educational Research, vol. 14, no. 3: 107-113. https://doi.org/10.12691/education-14-3-5
Ng, W. (2012). Can We Teach Digital Natives Digital Literacy? Computers & Education, 59(3), 1065–1078. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.04.016
Nunnally, J. (1978). Psychometric Methods. 2nd Edition, McGraw-Hill, New York. Retrieved from https://books.google.ro/books/about/Psychometric_Theory.html?id=WE59AAAAMAAJ&redir_esc=y
Niyonzima, J. B. (2023). Artificial intelligence and higher education in Africa: Toward inclusive and context-sensitive innovation. International Journal of Educational Development, 98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2023.102743
OpenAI Policy Lab. (2025). Towards a Global Pact for Responsible Academic AI Use. OpenAI Education Policy Series.
Siemens, G. (2022). Learning analytics and the future of higher education. EDUCAUSE. https://www.educause.edu
Tashakkori, A. & Teddlie, C. (2010). SAGE handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications. Retrieved from https://methods.sagepub.com/hnbk/edvol/sage-handbook-of-mixed-methods-social-behavioral-research-2e/toc#_
Tondeur, J., Siddiq, F., & Scherer, R. (2022). Development of AI Literacy in Teacher Education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 117(1), 103799.
UNESCO. (2018). A Global Framework for Media and Information Literacy. Paris: UNESCO.
UNESCO. (2024a). AI and Education: Guidance for Policymakers. Paris: UNESCO. Retrieved from https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000376709
UNESCO. (2024b). AI in Education: Policy Review for Sub-Saharan Africa. UNESCO Publishing.
UNESCO-IESALC. (2023). Artificial Intelligence and Higher Education in Latin America and the Caribbean. Caracas: IESALC.
Zawacki-Richter, O., & Kerres, M. (2023). Artificial Intelligence and Higher Education: Critical Perspectives on Ethical and Pedagogical Issues. Computers & Education, 194, 104674.
Zawacki-Richter, O., Marín, V. I., Bond, M., & Gouverneur, F. (2019). Systematic Review of Research on Artificial Intelligence Applications in Higher Education. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 16(1), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-019-0171-0
Downloads
Veröffentlicht
Ausgabe
Rubrik
Lizenz
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).


