RESUMO
En el cruce entre la revolución tecnológica y la educación en ciencias de la rehabilitación y del movimiento humano, la inteligencia artificial (IA) emerge como herramienta transformadora en los cursos de metodología de investigación. Este artículo destaca su potencial para optimizar la experiencia de aprendizaje y personalizar la instrucción, pero enfatiza la necesidad crucial de abordar desafíos éticos y pedagógicos. Propone orientaciones para equilibrar la innovación educativa y la responsabilidad académica, resaltando la importancia de la implementación consciente y planificada de la IA en los equipos de investigación en ciencias de la rehabilitación y del movimiento humano, garantizando así la integridad científica y ética en este campo en constante evolución.
In the intersection between technological advancements and education in rehabilitation science, artificial intelligence (AI) emerges as a transformative tool in research methodology. This article navigates the ethical and academic considerations tied to the incorporation of AI in rehabilitation and movement science courses. While acknowledging its potential to enhance learning experiences, it critically addresses the imperative to tackle ethical and pedagogical challenges. The paper offers guidance to strike a balance between educational innovation and academic responsibility. It emphasizes the need for a conscientious and planned implementation of AI, ensuring both scientific integrity and ethical adherence in this dynamically evolving field.
RESUMO
Purpose@#This study aimed to assess the educational environment (EE) among students in a physical therapy undergraduate program, to identify patterns in EE perceptions among the students by year, and to determine issues that should be addressed. @*Methods@#The Dundee Ready Education Environment Measure (DREEM) questionnaire was used to explore the relationships among the total mean score, subscales, and items in a competency-based curriculum in the physical therapy program at the University of Chile. The DREEM questionnaire was filled out by 166 of 244 students (68.03%), of whom 56.6% were men and 43.4% were women, with 75.9% between 19 and 23 years of age. @*Results@#The total mean score (120.9/200) indicated that the EE was perceived as ‘more positive than negative.’ There were significant differences (P<0.05) between first-year students (113.41), who reported the lowest total mean score, and fourth-year students (126.60), who had the highest total mean score. Students rated their EE favorably on each subscale except social self-perceptions, which second-year students rated as ‘not too bad,’ and for which first-, third-, and fourth-year students gave a rating corresponding to ‘not a nice place.’ On the perceptions of teachers subscale, there were significant differences (P<0.05) between first-year students (28.05/44) and fourth-year students (32.24/44) and between second-year students (28.72/44) and fourth-year students (32.24/44). On the academic self-perceptions subscale, there were significant differences (P<0.05) between first-year students (18.12/32) and second-year (21.68/32), third-year (22.33/32), and fourth-year students (21.87/32). @*Conclusion@#Physical therapy students at the University of Chile had positive perceptions of their EE. First-year students rated the largest number of items as problematic. Improvements are required across the program in the specific subscales mentioned above.