산업융합연구 (Journal of Industrial Convergence)

  • 제22권8호
  • /
  • Pages.1-17
  • /
  • 2024
  • /
  • 2635-8875(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2672-0124(eISSN)
대한산업경영학회 (DAEHAN Society of Industrial Management)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

특허 자료를 활용한 AI-에듀테크 분야 국가 간 기술 경쟁력 분석: 특허 통계 지표와 허들 음이항 모델의 활용

Technology Competitiveness in the AI-Edutech Field: Using Patent Indice and Hurdle Negative Binomial Model

  • 지일용 (한국기술교육대학교 산업대학원) ;
  • 배현영 (서강대학교 메타버스학과)
  • Ilyong Ji (Graduate School of Industry, Korea University of Technology and Education) ;
  • Hyun-young Bae (Dept. of Metaverse, Sogang University)
  • 투고 : 2024.07.08
  • 심사 : 2024.08.20
  • 발행 : 2024.08.28
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

최근 에듀테크의 관심이 AI 기술과의 접목에 집중되어 있는 가운데, 관련 분야 시장이 확대되고 있는 추세이다. 이에 본 연구는 AI-에듀테크 분야의 주요국 기술경쟁력과 핵심 기술분야를 분석하는 것을 목적으로 하였다. 또한 AI-에듀테크가 AI 기술과 에듀테크 간 융합임을 고려하여, 주요국별 AI-에듀테크 기술이 과연 기존의 AI 혹은 에듀테크 기술에 기반한 것인지 경로의존성도 분석하고자 하였다. 이를 위해 AI-에듀테크 분야 특허를 수집한 뒤, 특허활동력, 특허영향력, 시장확보력 등의 지표로 경쟁력을 분석하였고, 국제특허분류 코드로 국가별 핵심 기술 분야를 살펴보며, 허들 음이항 회귀모형으로 국가별 경로의존성을 분석하였다. 분석 결과, AI-에듀테크 분야 특허활동력은 중국이 가장 높고 한국, 미국, 인도, 일본이 그 뒤를 이었다. 특허영향력과 시장확보력 측면에서, 미국은 두 지표 모두 높고, 일본은 시장확보력이 높으며, 한국은 특허영향력이 높은 것으로 분석되었다. 또한 국제특허분류코드로 볼 때 국가 간 차별성이 나타나고 있으며, 한국은 머신러닝과 생체 모델 기반의 AI에 집중하면서 다양한 기술과 융합하는 특징이 있었다. 허들 음이항 분석 결과 중, 로짓 부분 결과로는 과거의 AI 또는 교육 분야 기술 보유 여부가 현재의 AI-에듀테크 기술의 등장 여부에 정의 영향을 주지는 않았으나, 카운트 부분 결과는 정의 영향을 주는 것으로 나타났다. 이는 현재의 AI-에듀테크 기술이 전반적으로 과거의 AI 또는 에듀테크 기술에 기반한다고 보기는 어려우나, 일부 과거 AI 또는 교육 기술에 기반한 AI-에듀테크가 일단 등장하면 이는 기존 기술로부터의 영향을 받음을 의미한다. 이러한 결과는 이 분야 향후 연구와 기술전략을 위한 시사점을 제공한다.

Recently, interest in edutech has been focused on its fusion with AI technology, and the market in this field is expanding. This study aims to analyze the technological competitiveness and key technological areas of major countries in the AI-edutech field. Additionally, considering that AI-edutech is a convergence of AI technology and edutech, the study seeks to examine the path dependence of AI-edutech in each country to determine whether they are based on existing AI technologies or edutech. To this end, AI-edutech patents were collected and competitiveness was analyzed using patent activity, patent impact, and market acquisition indicators. Path dependence for each country was analyzed using the hurdle negative binomial regression model. The analysis results indicate that the major countries in the AI-edutech field are China, South Korea, the United States, India, and Japan. In terms of patent activity, China had the highest level, followed by South Korea. In terms of patent impact and market securing power, the United States was high in both aspects, Japan had high market securing power, and South Korea had high patent influence. The results of the hurdle negative binomial analysis presented unique findings. The logit part results indicated that the possession of existing AI and edutech did not positively affect the emergence of current AI-edutech, but the count part results showed a positive influence. This suggests that, overall, it is difficult to assert that current AI-edutechs are based on past AI and edutechs. However, once some AI-edutechs based on existing AI and edutechs emerge, they are influenced by the existing technologies. These findings provide implications for future research and technological strategies in this field.

키워드

과제정보

This paper was supported by the Education and Research Promotion Program of KOREATECH in 2023.

참고문헌

  1. C. Lim, Y. Han, J. Chae, Z. Li, & D. Lee (2023). Analysis of EduTech Utilization in Teacher Training Institutions and Classification System of EduTech, The Journal of Korean Association of Computer Education, 26(4), 77-87. DOI : 10.32431/kace.2023.26.4.008
  2. Seo, B. (2021). EduTech, and 'A Place Called School'. Proceedings of the Korean Society for the Study of Sociology of Education, 59-82.
  3. H-R. Kim, J-H. Kim, J-H. Kim, S-M. Noh, & J-H. Park. (2024). Study on Mitigating Educational Disparities Using AI-based EdTech: Focusing on Korean Language and Mathematics Subjects. Journal of Digital Contents Society, 25(1), 279-290. DOI : 10.9728/dcs.2024.25.1.279
  4. Y. H. Pack & D. Kim. (2023). EduTech: Topic modeling of newspaper, The Journal of Korea Open Association for Early Childhood Education, 28(4), 139-158. DOI : 10.20437/KOAECE28-4-06
  5. A. Daniluk (2019). EdTech innovation in China's educational market - lessons Poland should learn from, Master's Thesis, Warsaw: Warsaw School of Economics. http://pchrb.pl/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Andrzej-Daniluk-mgr-Prywatnoprawne-aspekty-kolejowego-transportu-towarowego-miedzy-Unia-Europejska-a-Chinami.pdf
  6. V. V. Timchenko, S. Y. Trapitsin, & Z. V. Apevalova (2020). Educational Technology Market Analysis, 2020 International Conference Quality Management, Transport and Information Security, Information Technologies (I&MQ&IS), Yaroslavl, Russia, pp. 612-617. DOI: 10.1109/ITQMIS51053.2020.9322982.
  7. X. Wan (2021). A study on the current development of Artificial Intelligence in education industry in China, Proceedings of the 2021 7th International Conference on Education and Training Technologies, April 2021, pp.28-5. DOI: 10.1145/3463531.3463536
  8. P. A. David (1985). Clio and Economics of QWERTY. The American Economic Review, 75(2), 332-337.
  9. R. W. Rycroft & D. E. Kash (2002). Path dependence in the innovation of complex technologies. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 14(1), 21-35.
  10. H. Kang, J. Song, & K. Lee (2012). When and How Can Latecomers' Path-creating Catch-up Be Successful?: A Case Study on Interchangeable-lens Camera Industry, Journal of Strategic Management, 15(3), pp.95-135.
  11. J. H. Rhee, & J. W. Yang (2015). The Creation of Firm Competitiveness through R&D Investment: The Roles of Path Dependence and Resource Characteristics, Journal of Strategic Management, 18(3), pp.71-96.
  12. R. Boschma & G. Capone (2015). Institutions and diversification: Related versus unrelated diversification in a varieties of capitalism framework. Research Policy, 44, 1902-1914. DOI : 10.1016/j.respol.2015.06.013
  13. G. Park & D. Kim (2023). A study of factors influencing the innovation type of climate change-related technology in local industries. Journal of the Korean Geographical Society, 58(3), 199-216. DOI : 10.22776/kgs.2023.58.3.199
  14. P. Patel, & K. Pavitt (1997). The Technological Competencies of the World's Largest Firms: Complex and Path-dependent, but not much variety. Research Policy, 26(2), pp.141-156.
  15. H-J. Han, K. J. Kim, & H. Kwon. (2020). The Analysis of Elementary School Teachers' Perception of Using Artificial Intelligence in Education. Journal of Digital Convergence, 18(7), 47-56. DOI : 10.14400/JDC.2020.18.7.047
  16. L. Kim. (2024). Narrative Inquiry on High School Teachers' Concerns and Expectations about AI Convergence Classes. The Journal of Curriculum Studies, 42(1), 161-188. DOI : 10.15708/KSCS.42.1.7
  17. K-O. Park, M. W. Ok, & J. Kim. (2023). Special Education Teachers' Implementation Experiences and Perceptions of AI Education for Students with Disabilities: Focusing on AI Education Leading Schools. Journal of Intellectual Disabilities, 25(4), 57-86. DOI : 10.35361/KJID.25.4.3
  18. H-S. Lee & J. W. You. (2024). Exploring College Students' Educational Experiences and Perceptions of Generative AI : The case of A University. The Journal of the Korea Contents Association, 24(1), 428-437. DOI : 10.5392/JKCA.2024.24.01.428
  19. H. Lee. (2024). A study on the perception of elementary school students and their parents on English class using Edutech. The Linguistic Association of Korea Journal, 32(1), 21-49. DOI : 10.24303/lakdoi.2024.32.1.21
  20. S. You. (2024). Exploring the Direction of AI Education in Elementary School Curricullum. The Journal of Elementary Education. 37(2), 23-47.
  21. T-J. Seong, K. Si, & Y-J. Choi. (2024). Paradigm shift and the future direction of educational assessment in the era of generative AI. Journal of Educational Evaluation, 37(1), 1-28. DOI : 10.31158/JEEV.2024.37.1.1
  22. B. Kim, J. Choi, K. Lee, & M. Kim. (2023). A Study on the Development of Online K-Dance Program based on Edutech. Asian Journal of Physical Education and Sport Science, 11(3), 71-86. DOI : 10.24007/ajpess.2023.11.3.071
  23. E. Lim, M. Lim, M. Jeon, & C. Lim. (2024). Development of Instructional Systems Design Model for a Cross-Curricular AI Convergence Class to Improve Data Literacy. The Journal of Educational Information and Media, 30(1), 155-179. DOI : 10.15833/KAFEIAM.30.1.155
  24. W-S. Shin. (2020). Exploring the Possibility of AI Convergence Science Education in Motion and Energy. Journal of Energy and Climate Change Education, 10(1), 73-86. DOI: 10.22368/ksecce.2020.10.1.73
  25. S. H. Baek, & J. W. You. (2024). Development of AI convergence education program for elementary school students and analysis of learning effectiveness. The Journal of Korean Association of Computer Education, 27(2), 75-87. DOI : 10.32431/kace.2024.27.2.007
  26. A. Byun & H. Kim. (2022). The Effect of Design Classes Using Artificial Intelligence in the Era of COVID-19 on Social Responsibility of High School Students. Archives of Design Research, 35(4), 251-266 DOI : 10.15187/adr.2022.11.35.4.251
  27. O. S. Ha, S. Y. Kim, E. S. Go, & C. K. Park. (2024). A Study on College Students' Perceptions of Satisfaction and Learning Outcomes using the AI-based Adaptive Learning Platform (ALEKS). Journal of Educational Innovation Research, 34(1), 249-273. DOI : 10.21024/pnuedi.34.1.202403.249
  28. Y. Kim, S. Kim, & K-L. Cho. (2024). Press Analysis on AI Education Using News Big Data. The Journal of Educational Information and Media, 30(1), 27-53. DOI : 10.15833/KAFEIAM.30.1.027
  29. Y. S. Lee. (2024). Analyzing trends in AI education using machine learning and CONCOR techniques. The Journal of Korean Association of Computer Education, 27(1), 227-232. DOI : 10.32431/kace.2024.27.1.017
  30. S. Baek & N. Han. (2021). An Analysis and Implication of Edu-Tech Industry in China. Korean Journal of Comparative Education, 31(1), 31-54 (24 pages) DOI : 10.20306/kces.2021.31.1.31
  31. J. Shim & D. Kwon. (2020). Development of Artificial Intelligence Education Content to Classify Emotion of Sentences for Elementary School, Journal of The Korean Association of Information Education, 24(3), 243-254. DOI : 10.14352/jkaie.2020.24.3.243
  32. I-A. Chounta, E. Bardone, A. Raudsep, & M. Pedaste (2021). Exploring Teachers' Perceptions of Artificial Intelligence as a Tool to Support their Practice in Estonian K-12 Education. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 32, pp.725-755. DOI: 10.1007/s40593-021-00243-5
  33. T. Nazaretsky, M. Ariely, M. Cukurova, & G. Alexandron (2022). Teachers' Trust in AI-Powered Educational Technology and a Professional Development Program to Improve It. British Journal of Educational Technology, 53(4), pp.914-931. DOI: 10.1111/bjet.13232
  34. P. Rodway, & A. Schepman (2023). The Impact of Adopting AI Educational Technologies on Projected Course Satisfaction in University Students. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 5, pp.1-12. DOI: 10.1016/j.caeai.2023.100150
  35. A. Guilherme (2019). AI and Education: The Importance of Teacher and Student Relations. AI & Society, 34, pp.47-54. DOI: 10.1007/s00146-017-0693-8
  36. K. Zhang, & A. B. Aslan (2021). AI Technologies for Education: Recent Research & Future Directions. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 2, pp.1-12. DOI: 10.1016/j.caeai.2021.100025
  37. X. Zhai, X. Chu, C. S. Chai, M. S. Y. Jong, A. Istenic, M. Spector, J-B. Liu, J. Yuan, & Y. Li (2021). A Review of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Education from 2010 to 2020. Complexity, 2021(8812542), pp.1-18. DOI: 10.1155/2021/8812542
  38. K. Smith. (2005). Measuring Innovation. In J. Fagerberg, D. C. Mowery, R. R. Nelson.(eds). The Oxford Handbook of Innovation. Oxford : Oxford University Press.
  39. S-N. Lim & J-S. Park. (2022). A study on the trend of patent application and new material development by era of wigs. Journal of Industrial Convergence, 20(6), 117-123. DOI : 10.22678/JIC.2022.20.6.117
  40. W-S. Choi, J-Y. Kim, J-H. Lee, & S-H. Choi. (2023). 6G Technology Competitiveness and Network Analysis: Focusing on GaN Integrated Circuit Patent Data, Industrial Convergence, 21(3), 1-15. DOI : 10.22678/JIC.2023.21.3.001
  41. I. Ji. (2023). Analyzing Technology Competitiveness and Core Technologies by Countries in the Safety Technologies Sectors Using Patent Statistics and Co-Classification Networks. Journal of Korea AcademiaIndustrial cooperation Society, 24(4), 600-609. DOI : 10.5762/KAIS.2023.24.4.600
  42. S. H. Yoon & I. Ji. (2019). Analyzing Technology Competitiveness by Country in the Semiconductor Cleaning Equipment Sector Using Quantitative Indices and Co-Classification Network. Journal of the Korea Convergence Society, 10(11), 85-93. DOI : 10.15207/JKCS.2019.10.11.085
  43. KIIP (2012). Development of Indicators for IP Competitiveness and Characteristics. Seoul : Korea Institute of Intellectual Property.
  44. K. W. Seo (2011). Development and Application of Research Methods for Technology Level Evaluation Using Patent Information, SEOUL : Korea Institute of S&T Evaluation and Planning (KISTEP). https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjA_PWz1JGGAxXTzTQHHXY8B6IQFnoECBUQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.kistep.re.kr%2FboardDownload.es%3Fbid%3D0031%26list_no%3D35096%26seq%3D2595&usg=AOvVaw3CSRxpw-0kxzBXkAHg4WHw&opi=89978449
  45. Y. Kim. (2022). A Study on IPC Code Quantitative Assignment Method. Journal of Korean Institute of Intelligent Systems, 32(5), 374-378. DOI : 10.5391/JKIIS.2022.32.5.374
  46. N. Yun & I. Ji. (2019). An analysis of patent co-classification network for exploring core technologies of firms: an application to the foldable display sector. Journal of the Korea Academia-Industrial Cooperation Society, 20(4), 382-390. DOI : 10.5762/KAIS.2019.20.4.382
  47. J-S. Noh & I. Ji. (2019). A Comparative Analysis of Convergence Types and Technology Levels of Polymer Technologies in Korea and Other Advanced Countries: Utilizing Patent Information. Journal of the Korean Convergence Society, 10(3), 185-192. DOI : 10.15207/JKCS.2019.10.3.185
  48. T-Y. Park, H. Lim, & I. Ji. (2018). Identifying potential users of technology for technology transfer using patent citation analysis: a case analysis of a Korean research institute. Scientometrics, 116, 1541-1558. DOI : 10.1007/s11192-018-2792-9
  49. J. Kim, C-Y. Lee, & Y. Cho. (2016). Technological diversification, core-technology competence, and firm growth. Research Policy, 45(1), 113-124. DOI : 10.1016/j.respol.2015.07.005
  50. J-J. Jung & D-H. Lee (2020). A study on convergence innovation trends of power-digital transformation technology through IPC network anlysis. Korea Business Review, 24 (Special Issue), 87-103. DOI : 10.17287/kbr.2020.24.0.87
  51. G. Kim & B-K. Kim (2021). A Study on the Factors Influencing Technology Transfer in the Agricultural Sector. Journal of Korea Technology Innovation Society, 24(3), 461-476. DOI : 10.35978/jktis.2021.6.24.3.461
  52. M-C. Hu, M. Pavlicova, & E. V. Nunes (2011), Zero-inflated and hurdle models of count data with extra zeros: Examples from an HIV-risk reduction intervention trial. American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 37(5), 367-375. DOI : 10.3109/00952990.2011.597280
  53. S. Jung & S. Lee (2024). Analysis of Urban Environment Factors Affecting the Occurrence of Vacant Houses in Seoul, Korea. Journal of Korea Planing Accociation, 59(1), 143-160. DOI : 10.17208/jkpa.2024.02.59.1.143
  54. S. H. Jang & J. Y. Chung (2019). An Analysis of Factors Affecting Delinquency of Students in Middle School Using Zero-Inflated Negative Binomial Regression Model. Journal of Education & Culture, 25(6), 595-618. DOI : 10.24159/joec.2019.25.6.595
  55. H. Chun (2017). Fit of the number of insurance solicitor's turnovers using zero-inflated negative binomial regression. Journal of the Korean Data & Information Science Society, 28(5), 1087-1097. DOI : 10.7465/jkdi.2017.28.5.1087
  56. J. Park (2014). The selection and decision in R&D and patents: a hurdle negative binomial approach. Journal of Korea Technology Innovation Society, 17(3), 449-466.
  57. J. S. Long, & J. Freese (2005). Regression Models for Categorical Dependent Variables Using Stata, 2nd Edition. Stata Press.
  58. H. Fujii & S. Managi (2018). Trends and priority shifts in artificial intelligence technology invention: A global patent analysis. Economic Analysis and Policy, 58, 60-69. DOI : 10.1016/j.eap.2017.12.006
  59. F. Calvino, C. Criscuolo, H. Dernis, & L. Samek (2023). What Technologies Are at the Core of AI? An Exploration Based on Patent Data. OECD Publishing.
  60. S. Breschi, F. Malerba, & L. Orsenigo (2000). Technological Regimes and Schumpeterian Patterns of Innovation. The Economic Journal, 110, pp.388-410.