Inteligencia artificial generativa, carga laboral y bienestar profesional en docentes universitarios en Ecuador

Sandra Elizabeth     Cevallos Suárez; Mayra Verónica    Lara Llumiquinga; Adriana Cecilia     Racines Orbe; Renato Matías     Torres Montaño

doi:10.47606/ACVEN/PH0576

Authors

Sandra Elizabeth Cevallos Suárez Universidad de las Américas, Quito, Ecuador https://orcid.org/0009-0003-0596-0254
Mayra Verónica Lara Llumiquinga Universidad de las Américas, Quito, Ecuador https://orcid.org/0009-0008-7025-1127
Adriana Cecilia Racines Orbe Universidad de las Américas, Quito, Ecuador https://orcid.org/0009-0007-4480-4763
Renato Matías Torres Montaño Hospital de Especialidades de Fuerzas Armadas https://orcid.org/0009-0006-3981-787X

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.47606/ACVEN/PH0576

Keywords:

generative artificial intelligence, workload,, professional well-being

Abstract

Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) is transforming higher education; while it raises expectations of reduced workloads, it also introduces new cognitive and ethical demands. This study aimed to analyze the relationship between the use of GenAI tools and the workload and professional well-being of university faculty in Quito, Ecuador. Using an explanatory sequential mixed-methods design with a training intervention (QUANT₁-QUAL-QUANT₂), the researchers administered questionnaires (NASA-TLX, UWES-9, MBI) and conducted focus groups with 280 faculty members from three types of universities. The results indicate that GenAI usage predicts higher workloads, emotional exhaustion, and lower vigor. Training significantly reduced mental demand (d=0.56) and exhaustion (d=0.45). Qualitative analysis revealed three key mechanisms: cognitive intensification, ethical-identity tension, and the institutional gap. The study concludes that GenAI does not automatically reduce workload; critical and supported integration is essential to preserve faculty well-being.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Aburto, E. A., Cruz, A. S., & Padrós, F. (2026). Fiabilidad de las respuestas de los docentes universitarios mexicanos. Caleidoscopio-Revista Semestral de Ciencias Sociales y Humanidades, 29(54), 41-60. https://doi.org/10.33064/54crscsh8613

Ayanwale, M. A., Sanusi, I. T., Adelana, O. P., Aruleba, K. D., & Oyelere, S. S. (2022). Teachers’ readiness and intention to teach artificial intelligence in schools. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 3(1), 100099. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2022.100099

Batista, F. B., Cabral, B., Pinto, C. D., Braga, L. A., Comarú, M. W., & Lopes, R. M. (2026, June). The evolving role of higher education teachers in the age of artificial intelligence: a scoping review. Frontiers in Education, 11(1), Article 1813497. Frontiers Media SA. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2026.1813497

Bernilla, E. B. (2024). Docentes ante la inteligencia artificial en una universidad pública del norte del Perú. Educación, 33(64), 8-28. https://doi.org/10.18800/educacion.202401.M001

Ding, N., Hu, L., Kim, K. T., & Chen, M. (2026). When generative artificial intelligence becomes a colleague: dual pathways of empowerment and depletion in university design teachers' work behaviors. Sustainability 18(4), 23-31. https://doi.org/10.3390/su18041775

Dishari, S. (2026). Teaching in the age of generative AI: A qualitative analysis of faculty identity, emotion, and assessment concerns. Journal of Artificial Intelligence and Technology, 6, 270-283. https://doi.org/10.37965/jait.2025.0941

Dúo, P., Gil, L. P., Marín, J. A., & Román, M. (2026). Alfabetización en inteligencia artificial generativa. Conocimiento, uso y descarga cognitiva en el profesorado. Revista de Educación a Distancia (RED), 26(84). https://doi.org/10.6018/red.684721

Hernández, N., & Rodríguez, M. J. (2024). Inteligencia artificial aplicada a la educación y la evaluación educativa en la Universidad: introducción de sistemas de tutorización inteligentes, sistemas de reconocimiento y otras tendencias futuras. RED. Revista de educación a distancia, 24(78), 1-31. http://dx.doi.org/10.6018/red.594651

Hernández-Sampieri, R. & Mendoza, C. (2018). Metodología de la investigación: las rutas cuantitativa, cualitativa y mixta. McGraw Hill. https://doi.org/10.22201/fesc.20072236e.2019.10.18.6

López, F. E., Angulo, M. R., & Sosa, D. I. (2025). Formación docente en IA Generativa: impacto ético y retos en educación superior. Alteridad. Revista de Educación, 20(2), 166-177. https://doi.org/10.17163/alt.v20n2.2025.01

Luckin, R., Cukurova, M., Kent, C., & Du Boulay, B. (2022). Empowering educators to be AI-ready. Computers and education: artificial intelligence, 3(1), 100076. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2022.100076

Ortega, Á. S., Padilla, J. E., & Auris, J. S. (2025). Sobrecarga laboral e inteligencia artificial en docentes: revisión sistemática. Impulso, Revista de Administración, 5(10), 227-242. https://doi.org/10.59659/impulso.v.5i10.113

Ramírez, M., Lotero, D. F., Robayo, D. M., & Garrido, D. R. (2024). El papel del contexto institucional en la carga mental percibida en instituciones educativas. Revista San Gregorio, 1(58), 31-39. https://doi.org/10.36097/rsan.v1i58.2637

Sakr, H., & Imran, A. (2024). Intrusion of Generative AI in higher education and its impact on the educators’ well-being: A scoping review. https://aisel.aisnet.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1155&context=acis2024

Su, F., Beh, W. F., & Cheah, K. S. (2026). Efficiency or intensification? A systematic review of generative AI and academic workload in higher education. Acta Psychologica, 268, 107353. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2026.107353

Wu, H., Luo, W., He, J., & Wu, T. (2026). Are university teachers ready for AI under anxiety? Self-efficacy mediation and gender moderation. Interactive Learning Environments, 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2026.2643795