Algorithmic narratives and university digitalculture: uses of ChatGPT, TikTok, andgenerative AI tools in southern Mexico

Narrativas algorítmicas y cultura digital universitaria: usos de ChatGPT, TikTok y herramientas de IA generativa en el sur de México

Published 2026-10-23


https://doi.org/1030554/escribania.v24i2.5764
Open | Download
pdf (Spanish) FLIP XML (Spanish) html (Spanish) epub (Spanish)
Issue
Vol. 24 No. 2: Escenarios, plataformas y ecologías creativas: una invitación a repensar la comunicación estratégica desde el Sur
Section
Forgers: Research Articles
How to Cite
Avendaño Porras, V. del C., & Alfonzo Albores, I. . (2026). Algorithmic narratives and university digitalculture: uses of ChatGPT, TikTok, andgenerative AI tools in southern Mexico. Escribanía, 24(2). https://doi.org/1030554/escribania.v24i2.5764
Download Citation
Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS) BibTeX
DOI

https://doi.org/1030554/escribania.v24i2.5764
Dimensions
PlumX

How to Cite

Avendaño Porras, V. del C., & Alfonzo Albores, I. . (2026). Algorithmic narratives and university digitalculture: uses of ChatGPT, TikTok, andgenerative AI tools in southern Mexico. Escribanía, 24(2). https://doi.org/1030554/escribania.v24i2.5764

Download Citation

license
Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Victor del Carmen Avendaño Porras
Instituto Latinoamericano de Educación a Distancia
Iris Alfonzo Albores
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1714-5965 ORCID
Show authors biography

This article examines how university students in southern Mexico articulate academic uses of ChatGPT, TikTok, and other generative artificial intelligence tools. A sequential explanatory mixed-methods design combined a nonprobability survey of 412 students from five states, 102 digital diary entries, and 96 excerpts from 32 semi-structured interviews. The findings show that academic ChatGPT use is linked both to perceived learning support and to tensions involving
dependence, plagiarism, and authorship. Source verification is associated with teacher guidance and classroom ethical discussion, while TikTok operates
as a resource for discovery and microlearning, although levels of trust vary.
The qualitative analysis identifies processes of instrumental appropriation, platform mediation, ethical negotiation, and narrative identity. The four dimensions
constitute an exploratory interpretative matrix, rather than a validated psychometric scale. The findings describe practices within the nonprobability sample and do not establish causality or support statistical generalization.

Article visits 0 | PDF visits 0

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.
  1. Brites, M. J., Castro, T. S., Müller, M. S., & Maneta, M. (2024). Young people learning about algorithms: Five profiles
  2. spanning from ineptitude to enchantment. Media and Communication, 12, Artículo 8272.
  3. https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.8272
  4. Bucher, T. (2017). The algorithmic imaginary: Exploring the ordinary affects of Facebook algorithms. Information,
  5. Communication & Society, 20(1), 30–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2016.1154086
  6. Coll, C., Mauri, T., & Onrubia, J. (2008). Análisis de los usos reales de las TIC en contextos educativos formales: Una
  7. aproximación sociocultural. Revista Electrónica de Investigación Educativa, 10(1), 1–18.
  8. https://redie.uabc.mx/redie/article/view/177
  9. Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2018). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). SAGE.
  10. Deuze, M. (2006). Participation, remediation, bricolage: Considering principal components of a digital culture. The
  11. Information Society, 22(2), 63–75. https://doi.org/10.1080/01972240600567170
  12. Dogruel, L., Masur, P., & Joeckel, S. (2022). Development and validation of an algorithm literacy scale for internet
  13. users. Communication Methods and Measures, 16(2), 115–133.
  14. https://doi.org/10.1080/19312458.2021.1968361
  15. Gillespie, T. (2018). Custodians of the internet: Platforms, content moderation, and the hidden decisions that shape
  16. social media. Yale University Press. https://doi.org/10.12987/9780300235029
  17. Gran, A.-B., Booth, P., & Bucher, T. (2021). To be or not to be algorithm aware: A question of a new digital divide?
  18. Information, Communication & Society, 24(12), 1779–1796. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2020.1736124
  19. Guetterman, T. C., Fetters, M. D., & Creswell, J. W. (2015). Integrating quantitative and qualitative results in health
  20. science mixed methods research through joint displays. Annals of Family Medicine, 13(6), 554–561.
  21. https://doi.org/10.1370/afm.1865
  22. Hernández-Sampieri, R., & Mendoza Torres, C. P. (2018). Metodología de la investigación: Las rutas cuantitativa,
  23. cualitativa y mixta. McGraw-Hill Education.
  24. Jenkins, H., Ford, S., & Green, J. (2013). Spreadable media: Creating value and meaning in a networked culture.
  25. New York University Press. https://doi.org/10.18574/nyu/9780814743515.001.0001
  26. Jylhä, V., Hirvonen, N., & Haider, J. (2025). Algorithmic recommendations in the everyday life of young people:
  27. Imaginaries of agency and resources. Information, Communication & Society, 28(15), 2641–2657.
  28. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2025.2470227
  29. Kemp, S. (2025, 3 de marzo). Digital 2025: Mexico. DataReportal.
  30. https://datareportal.com/reports/digital-2025-mexico.
  31. Lo, C. K. (2023). What is the impact of ChatGPT on education? A rapid review of the literature. Education Sciences,
  32. 13(4), Artículo 410. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13040410
  33. Long, D., & Magerko, B. (2020). What is AI literacy? Competencies and design considerations. En Proceedings of the
  34. 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1–16). Association for Computing Machinery.
  35. https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376727
  36. Martín-Barbero, J. (1987). De los medios a las mediaciones: Comunicación, cultura y hegemonía. Gustavo Gili.
  37. Miao, F., & Holmes, W. (2023). Guidance for generative AI in education and research. UNESCO.
  38. https://doi.org/10.54675/EWZM9535
  39. Molina-Montalvo, H., Macías Villarreal, J. C., & Haces Atondo, G. (2025). Impacto, percepciones y uso de ChatGPT
  40. en la formación de estudiantes de pedagogía y educación. Un estudio diagnóstico en diez universidades de
  41. México. Revista Tecnología, Ciencia y Educación, (31), 59–89. https://doi.org/10.51302/tce.2025.24301
  42. Montero Corrales, L. (2025). TikTok y prácticas informativas en la generación Z universitaria. Revista de Comunicación
  43. de la SEECI, 58, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.15198/seeci.2025.58.e931
  44. Otero Escobar, A. D., & Suárez-Jasso, E. (2025). Responsabilidad ética del uso de ChatGPT en estudiantes universitarios.
  45. Transdigital, 6(11), Artículo e406. https://doi.org/10.56162/transdigital406
  46. Ricoeur, P. (1996). Sí mismo como otro (A. Neira Calvo, Trad.). Siglo XXI Editores. (Trabajo original publicado en 1990)
  47. Sūna, L., & Hoffmann, D. (2024). From AI imaginaries to AI literacy: Artificial intelligence technologies in the everyday
  48. lives of migrants in Germany. MedieKultur: Journal of Media and Communication Research, 40(76), 53–76.
  49. https://doi.org/10.7146/mk.v40i76.137144
  50. Tavory, I., & Timmermans, S. (2014). Abductive analysis: Theorizing qualitative research. University of Chicago
  51. Press. https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226180458.001.0001
  52. Van Dijck, J., Poell, T., & de Waal, M. (2018). The platform society: Public values in a connective world. Oxford
  53. University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190889760.001.0001
  54. Zuboff, S. (2019). The age of surveillance capitalism: The fight for a human future at the new frontier of power.
  55. PublicAffairs.
Social networks
Google Scholar profile

ISSN
ISSN: 0123-6938 
E-ISSN: 2665-4873

Keywords

QR code