## 3 Results
The smallest effect size in the table ((\(\eta^{2}\) = 0.004) suggests that age has almost no impact on views about AI's role in education. All age groups hold similar opinions on AI's role in teaching and learning with no strong generational divide. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Subscale** & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Male**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Female**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**T (428)**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{\(p\)**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**d**} \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Attitudes and perceptions Role of AI in the teaching-learning process} & M & DE & M & DE & & & & \\  & 3.89 & 0.928 & 3.83 & 0.68 & 0.86 & 0.389 & 0.08 \\  & 3.70 & 0.822 & 3.61 & 0.72 & 1.25 & 0.212 & 0.12 \\  & 4.18 & 0.645 & 4.26 & 0.59 & \(-\)1.30 & 0.193 & \(-\)0.13 \\  & 4.11 & 0.593 & 4.08 & 0.56 & 0.58 & 0.562 & 0.06 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Gender differences in subscales on perceptions of AI in higher education. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Subscale** & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Less than 25**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**25–34**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**35–44**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**45–54**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Más de 55**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**F(2,4)**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{\(p\)**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**n2**} \\ \cline{2-13}  & **M** & **DE** & **M** & **DE** & **M** & **DE** & **M** & **DE** & & & & \\ \hline Attitudes and perceptions Role of AI in the teaching-learning process & 3.94 & 0.81 & 3.80 & 0.73 & 3.95 & 0.85 & 3.70 & 0.95 & 3.69 & 0.58 & 1.81 & 0.127 & 0.017 \\  & 3.69 & 0.82 & 3.64 & 0.68 & 3.61 & 0.79 & 3.65 & 0.81 & 3.52 & 0.63 & 0.40 & 0.809 & 0.004 \\ Ethical and social implications & 4.16 & 0.63 & 4.21 & 0.62 & 4.38 & 0.53 & 4.25 & 0.72 & 4.34 & 0.40 & 1.82 & 0.124 & 0.017 \\  & 4.12 & 0.54 & 4.06 & 0.58 & 4.14 & 0.63 & 4.11 & 0.65 & 3.97 & 0.48 & 0.65 & 0.625 & 0.006 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 5: Differences in perceptions of AI use in higher education by age group. For the ethical and social implications of AI subscale, the highest scores were from 35-44 (M = 4.38) and 55+ (M = 4.34), indicating that older individuals may be slightly more concerned about ethics than younger groups. While older respondents may place slightly more importance on ethical concerns, the difference in not significant enough to suggest a generational divide. In the future role of AI subscale, scores are fairly high across all age groups, ranging from 3.97 (55+) to 4.14 (35-44). All age groups believe AI will play an important role in the future, with no major differences in optimism across generations. Table 6 presents comparisons between students, educators, and administrative staff regarding their perceptions of AI in higher education. There are significant differences in the attitudes and perceptions subscale (F2427 = 3.87, \(p\) = 0.022). Post hoc analyses with Bonferroni corrections revealed that students (M = 3.92, SD = 0.78) scored significantly higher than faculty members (M = 3.65, SD = 0.79, \(p\) = 0.019), indicating that students hold more positive attitudes and perceptions toward AI compared to faculty. However, no significant differences were found between students and administrative staff (M = 3.81, SD = 0.91, \(p\) = 0.624) or between administrative staff and faculty (\(p\) = 0.490). For the other subscales, no significant differences were observed; (F4427 = 2.47, \(p\) = 0.86 for the role of AI in the teaching-learning process; F4427 = 2.90, \(p\) = 0.056 for ethical and social implications; and (F4427 = 0.28, \(p\) = 0.755 for the role of AI in the future). Regarding the disciplinary area (Table 7), the analyses revealed no significant differences across any of the subscales (F4425 = 1.02, \(p\) = 0.397 for the attitudes and perceptions subscale; F4425 = 0.85, \(p\) = 0.49 for the role of AI in the teaching-learning process; F4425 = 2.19, \(p\) = 0.069 for the ethical and social implications; and F4425 = 1.05. \(p\) = 0.383 for the role of AI in the future).