กรอบ EELA-QA: แบบจำลองแนวคิดเพื่อการประกันคุณภาพการใช้ปัญญาประดิษฐ์  ในโรงเรียนประถมศึกษาไทย

Kawiwat Wichitchokthananon; Watcharin  Kokwan

Authors

Kawiwat Wichitchokthananon Sisaket Rajabhat University
Watcharin Kokwan Sisaket Rajabhat University

Keywords:

EELA-QA framework, artificial intelligence in education, quality assurance, primary schools, learning evidence

Abstract

Background and Objective: The increasing use of artificial intelligence (AI) in Thai primary schools raises concerns about child data protection, algorithmic fairness, equitable access, and the validity of learning evidence. These concerns are particularly important for young learners, who have limited capacity to provide informed consent, regulate their own AI use, and critically evaluate AI-generated outputs. This study aimed to develop the EELA-QA framework for the quality assurance of AI use in Thai primary schools.

Methodology: A two-phase conceptual framework development design was employed. First, 47 Thai- and English-language research articles, reviews, and policy documents published mainly between 2018 and 2026 were selected from 226 initial records and synthesized through conceptual synthesis. Second, seven experts reviewed the draft framework using an Index of Item-Objective Congruence (IOC) form, an appropriateness rating form, and open-ended questions.

Results: The framework comprises four dimensions: ethics, equity, learning evidence, and accountability. Item-level IOC values ranged from 0.71 to 1.00, and the arithmetic mean across 31 items was 0.92. The overall appropriateness rating was high (M = 4.38, SD = 0.54). Expert feedback clarified child data protection, multi-source learning evidence, and traceability through SAR and PLC processes.

Conclusion: EELA-QA provides a conceptual foundation for school-level self-review of AI use that is safe, fair, evidence-based, and auditable. It is not intended as a high-stakes assessment tool. Field feasibility studies and further validation are required before the framework is developed into a full assessment instrument.

References

กระทรวงศึกษาธิการ. (2561). กฎกระทรวงการประกันคุณภาพการศึกษา พ.ศ. 2561. กระทรวงศึกษาธิการ.

สำนักงานคณะกรรมการการศึกษาขั้นพื้นฐาน. (2561). มาตรฐานการศึกษาระดับการศึกษาขั้นพื้นฐาน. สำนักงานคณะกรรมการการศึกษาขั้นพื้นฐาน.

สำนักงานรับรองมาตรฐานและประเมินคุณภาพการศึกษา. (2567). แนวทางการประเมินคุณภาพภายนอกสถานศึกษา. สำนักงานรับรองมาตรฐานและประเมินคุณภาพการศึกษา.

Adams, C., Pente, P., Lemermeyer, G., & Rockwell, G. (2023). Ethical principles for artificial intelligence in K–12 education. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 4, Article 100131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2023.100131

Alasadi, E. A., & Baiz, C. R. (2023). Generative AI in education and research: Opportunities, concerns, and solutions. Journal of Chemical Education, 100(8), 2965–2971. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.3c00323

Bahroun, Z., Anane, C., Ahmed, V., & Zacca, A. (2023). Transforming education: A comprehensive review of generative artificial intelligence in educational settings through bibliometric and content analysis. Sustainability, 15(17), Article 12983. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151712983

Brookhart, S. M. (2013). How to create and use rubrics for formative assessment and grading. ASCD.

Corrêa, N. K., Galvão, C., Santos, J. W., Del Pino, C., Pinto, E. P., Barbosa, C., Massmann, D., Mambrini, R., Galvão, L., Terem, E., & de Oliveira, N. (2023). Worldwide AI ethics: A review of 200 guidelines and recommendations for AI governance. Patterns, 4(10), Article 100857. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.patter.2023.100857

European Commission. (2022). Ethical guidelines on the use of artificial intelligence (AI) and data in teaching and learning for educators. Publications Office of the European Union. https://doi.org/10.2766/153756

Hsieh, H. F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277–1288. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732305276687

Jobin, A., Ienca, M., & Vayena, E. (2019). The global landscape of AI ethics guidelines. Nature Machine Intelligence, 1, 389–399. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42256-019-0088-2

Kane, M. T. (2013). Validating the interpretations and uses of test scores. Journal of Educational Measurement, 50(1), 1–73. https://doi.org/10.1111/jedm.12000

Long, D., & Magerko, B. (2020). What is AI literacy? Competencies and design considerations. Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1–16.

https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376727

Messick, S. (1995). Validity of psychological assessment: Validation of inferences from persons’ responses and performances as scientific inquiry into score meaning. American Psychologist, 50(9), 741–749. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.50.9.741

OECD. (2024). OECD AI principles. OECD.AI Policy Observatory.

Rovinelli, R. J., & Hambleton, R. K. (1977). On the use of content specialists in the assessment of criterion-referenced test item validity. Dutch Journal for Educational Research, 2(1), 49–60.

Turner, R. C., & Carlson, L. (2003). Indexes of item-objective congruence for multidimensional items. International Journal of Testing, 3(2), 163–171. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327574IJT0302_5

UNESCO. (2021). AI and education: Guidance for policy-makers. UNESCO.

UNESCO. (2023). Guidance for generative AI in education and research. UNESCO.

UNESCO. (2024). AI competency framework for teachers. UNESCO.

Wiggins, G. (1998). Educative assessment: Designing assessments to inform and improve student performance. Jossey-Bass.