{"id":5612,"date":"2026-06-29T15:19:52","date_gmt":"2026-06-29T21:19:52","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/cife.edu.mx\/recursos\/?p=5612"},"modified":"2026-06-29T16:11:57","modified_gmt":"2026-06-29T22:11:57","slug":"chapter-socioformation-a-pedagogical-model-for-territorial-transformation-and-ethical-governance-in-the-era-of-artificial-intelligence","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/cife.edu.mx\/recursos\/chapter-socioformation-a-pedagogical-model-for-territorial-transformation-and-ethical-governance-in-the-era-of-artificial-intelligence\/","title":{"rendered":"CHAPTER Socioformation, a pedagogical model for territorial transformation and ethical governance in the era of artificial intelligence"},"content":{"rendered":"

Socioformation: a pedagogical model for territorial transformation and ethical governance in the era of artificial intelligence<\/strong><\/h1>\n

 <\/p>\n

Sergio Tobon, Ph.D.
\nUniversidad Aut\u00f3noma de Chihuahua, Mexico
\nCorrespondence: stobon@uach.mx<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

APA 7 citation<\/strong><\/p>\n

Tob\u00f3n, S. (2026). Socioformation: A pedagogical model for territorial transformation and ethical governance in the era of artificial intelligence. In S. de J. Tob\u00f3n Tob\u00f3n & J. E. Mart\u00ednez-I\u00f1iguez (Eds.), Socioformation, society and sustainable development<\/em> (pp. 19\u2013100). Autonomous University of Baja California. https:\/\/cife.edu.mx\/recursos\/chapter-socioformation-a-pedagogical-model-for-territorial-transformation-and-ethical-governance-in-the-era-of-artificial-intelligence\/<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Sergio de Jes\u00fas Tob\u00f3n Tob\u00f3n\u2019s chapter, \u201cSocioformation: A Pedagogical Model for Territorial Transformation and Ethical Governance in the Era of Artificial Intelligence,\u201d<\/strong> is a timely and ambitious theoretical contribution to one of the most urgent debates in contemporary education: what should universities form in human beings when artificial intelligence can increasingly automate the cognitive operations that educational systems have traditionally prized? The chapter\u2019s central claim is direct and provocative: higher education cannot continue to define its mission around content acquisition, isolated competencies, or cognitive taxonomies designed for a pre-AI world. Instead, education must move toward the integral formation of human beings<\/strong> capable of ethical judgment, sociocritical consciousness, territorial transformation, and responsible governance of AI. The chapter frames this shift as a response to \u201ceducational obsolescence\u201d and to the ethical crisis generated when curricula remain focused on skills that algorithms can replicate or surpass.<\/p>\n

The chapter is worth reading because it does not treat artificial intelligence merely as a technological tool to be inserted into classrooms. It treats AI as a civilizational rupture that obliges education to redefine its purpose. The guiding problem is not whether students should use AI, but how education can ensure that human beings ethically direct AI toward the common good<\/strong>. This question is especially relevant for universities, ministries of education, curriculum designers, educational technology companies, and organizations seeking to prepare professionals for social complexity rather than only for labor-market adaptation.<\/p>\n

The chapter seeks to answer several major questions: What remains distinctively human in professional formation when AI automates analysis, synthesis, strategy, and content generation? How can higher education avoid producing graduates whose competencies are rapidly displaced by algorithms? How can sustainability be reframed beyond environmental awareness or institutional rhetoric? How can the curriculum move from simulated cases to real territorial transformation? How should instructors, professionals, and students change their roles in AI-operated ecosystems? These questions give the chapter its intellectual force and practical urgency.<\/p>\n

One of the most relevant innovations is the transition from Sustainable Development<\/strong> to Sustainable Social Development<\/strong>. In Table 1, the chapter contrasts traditional sustainability approaches\u2014often reduced to environmental balance, economic viability, and the risk of greenwashing\u2014with a socioformative approach centered on dignity, justice, inclusion, and measurable improvements in living conditions. This is a significant move because it prevents sustainability from becoming a depoliticized slogan. The chapter insists that there can be no meaningful ecological sustainability without social justice, and that education must be judged by its capacity to improve concrete territorial realities.<\/p>\n

Another powerful contribution is the distinction between contextualization<\/strong> and territorialization<\/strong>. The chapter criticizes pedagogical approaches that use \u201ccontext\u201d merely as a case study or as a didactic resource for learning. In contrast, territorialization positions the territory as a living actor, a source of curriculum, and a field of co-created transformation. Table 3 makes this difference clear: contextualization studies problems; territorialization acts with communities to transform them. This is one of the chapter\u2019s most important conceptual advances because it shifts education from knowing about the world to ethically transforming it.<\/p>\n

The chapter\u2019s proposal of metaskills<\/strong> or metacompetencies<\/strong> is also highly innovative. Rather than continuing to train students in competencies that may be automated, the chapter argues for forming capacities that require ethical judgment, character, sociocritical analysis, interdisciplinary direction, collaborative territorial action, and metacognitive governance of AI. This is not simply a new terminology; it is an attempt to reposition human formation around what machines cannot internalize: moral purpose, territorial empathy, responsibility, and commitment to justice.<\/p>\n

The most compelling conceptual development is sociocritical thinking<\/strong>. The chapter argues that traditional critical thinking, although necessary, is insufficient because it may remain individualistic, analytical, and ethically neutral. Sociocritical thinking goes further: it asks whether a reality is just, what structural causes produce injustice, and how communities can collaboratively transform that reality. This reframes critical thinking as a transformative praxis rather than as an abstract intellectual exercise. In the age of AI-generated misinformation, algorithmic bias, and automated decision-making, this contribution is particularly relevant.<\/p>\n

The chapter also advances a curricular innovation through the Socioformative Taxonomy<\/strong>, which seeks to surpass Bloom, Marzano, and SOLO by moving from individual cognitive verbs to levels of ethical performance and territorial transformation. The proposed levels\u2014Receptive, Resolutive, Reflexive, Critical, and Cocreative\u2014are designed to assess not only what students know, but how they act, deliberate, co-create, and transform real problems. This is especially important because the chapter argues that many traditional learning outcomes can now be completed or simulated by AI.<\/p>\n

The chapter is particularly useful for curriculum reform. It proposes replacing rigid subject-centered curricula with interdisciplinary socioformative projects<\/strong>, micro-credentials, personalized trajectories, strategic partnerships, streamlined graduation through evidence portfolios, and longitudinal monitoring of metacompetencies. This gives the chapter practical value beyond theoretical critique. The proposal is not merely to \u201cadd AI\u201d to existing programs, but to redesign the architecture of higher education around real problems, ethical action, and evidence of territorial impact.<\/p>\n

Its relevance also extends to the future of work. The chapter argues that professional roles must shift from technical execution to strategic direction, ethical AI auditing, human-AI ecosystem articulation, sociocritical data literacy, and responsible innovation. This is a serious contribution because it challenges universities to stop preparing professionals for tasks that AI will increasingly perform and start preparing them to guide, evaluate, humanize, and govern technological systems.<\/p>\n

A critical reading should also note a challenge: the chapter is strongest as a conceptual and programmatic framework, but its claims require robust empirical operationalization. For example, the proposal to measure territorial impact, assess metaskills, certify micro-credentials, and audit AI ethically would benefit from implementation protocols, indicators, longitudinal studies, and case-based validation across institutional contexts. This does not weaken the chapter\u2019s importance; rather, it identifies the next stage of research. The chapter opens a necessary agenda, but the field will need evidence-based models to test how socioformation performs in different educational systems, disciplines, and communities.<\/p>\n

In sum, this chapter should be read because it offers a bold answer to a question that many institutions still avoid: education cannot remain centered on learning outcomes that AI can reproduce; it must form human beings capable of ethical, sociocritical, and territorial transformation<\/strong>. Its value lies in connecting AI governance, sustainability, curriculum design, social justice, and human formation in a single pedagogical architecture.<\/p>\n

Problems and Guiding Questions Addressed in the Chapter<\/h2>\n

The chapter addresses the problem of educational obsolescence<\/strong> in an era where AI can automate complex cognitive operations. It asks how higher education can remain relevant when traditional competencies, cognitive taxonomies, and content-based curricula are increasingly insufficient. It also addresses the problem of ethical pertinence<\/strong>: how can education form professionals who do not merely use technology efficiently, but direct it toward dignity, equity, and the common good?<\/p>\n

The chapter also asks how sustainability can move beyond abstract discourse. Its answer is Sustainable Social Development, a framework that links ecological responsibility with justice, inclusion, and measurable improvements in living conditions.<\/p>\n

A further problem is the passivity of traditional \u201ccontextualized\u201d education. The chapter asks how the territory can stop being a case study and become the living source of curriculum. Its answer is territorialization: formative action with communities, not merely analysis about communities.<\/p>\n

Finally, the chapter asks how curriculum, assessment, professional roles, and teaching should change in the AI era. It responds with socioformative projects, socioformative assessment, micro-credentials, personalized trajectories, ethical AI auditing, and the instructor as an architect of memorable transformative experiences.<\/p>\n

Relevance and Innovation<\/h2>\n

The chapter is relevant because it confronts a structural issue: many educational systems still prepare students for a world in which information was scarce, disciplines were stable, and professional competence was tied to technical execution. The AI era has destabilized that model. The chapter\u2019s innovation lies in shifting the educational center from learning<\/strong> to integral formation<\/strong>, from competencies<\/strong> to metaskills<\/strong>, from context<\/strong> to territory<\/strong>, from critical thinking<\/strong> to sociocritical thinking<\/strong>, and from AI use<\/strong> to AI governance<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

Its most original contribution is not technological but pedagogical and ethical: it argues that AI should become an operational platform subordinated to human purposes, not the organizing principle of education. In that sense, the chapter offers a Latin American humanistic alternative to purely instrumental models of AI literacy and workforce reskilling.<\/p>\n

Innovative Ideas \/ Highlights<\/h2>\n

1. Sustainable Social Development as an ethical compass.<\/strong>
The chapter reframes sustainability by placing dignity, inclusion, justice, and human well-being at the center. This prevents sustainability from being reduced to environmental rhetoric or institutional branding.<\/p>\n

2. Territorialization instead of contextualization.<\/strong>
The chapter\u2019s distinction between context and territory is one of its strongest innovations. Contextualization often uses reality as an example; territorialization turns reality into the curriculum\u2019s source, method, and field of transformation.<\/p>\n

3. Metaskills beyond competencies.<\/strong>
The chapter argues that competencies are increasingly vulnerable to automation. Metaskills, by contrast, involve ethical life projects, sociocritical thinking, interdisciplinary direction, collaboration in AI ecosystems, metacognitive AI, and deep innovation.<\/p>\n

4. Sociocritical thinking as AI-era human intelligence.<\/strong>
The chapter does not reject critical thinking but extends it. Sociocritical thinking asks about justice, power, exclusion, territory, and transformation. It is presented as a human capacity for ethical action that AI cannot authentically replace.<\/p>\n

5. Metacognitive artificial intelligence.<\/strong>
The chapter proposes that professionals should not merely prompt AI but govern it. This includes planning, monitoring, auditing, identifying bias, and ensuring that AI serves social justice and sustainable social development.<\/p>\n

6. Socioformative taxonomy.<\/strong>
The chapter proposes a taxonomy centered on ethical performance and territorial impact. This is an important alternative to taxonomies focused mainly on individual cognition.<\/p>\n

7. Socioformative projects as the backbone of curriculum.<\/strong>
The chapter proposes that real territorial problems should organize learning, assessment, research, and community engagement. This is a strong alternative to fragmented subject-based curricula.<\/p>\n

8. The instructor as architect of memorable experiences.<\/strong>
The instructor is no longer primarily a transmitter of content. The instructor becomes a designer of transformative experiences, ethical accompaniment, and sociocritical engagement with AI and territory.<\/p>\n

Spanish Summary \/ Resumen en espa\u00f1ol<\/h2>\n

El cap\u00edtulo plantea que la educaci\u00f3n superior enfrenta una crisis de pertinencia debido al avance de la inteligencia artificial, que ya puede automatizar muchas habilidades cognitivas tradicionalmente valoradas por la escuela y la universidad. Ante esto, la socioformaci\u00f3n propone desplazar el centro de la educaci\u00f3n desde el \u201caprendizaje\u201d hacia la formaci\u00f3n integral<\/strong> de personas con car\u00e1cter \u00e9tico, pensamiento sociocr\u00edtico, compromiso con el bien com\u00fan y capacidad para transformar territorios.<\/p>\n

La principal innovaci\u00f3n del cap\u00edtulo consiste en articular la socioformaci\u00f3n con la era de la IA. El texto propone que la educaci\u00f3n no debe limitarse a ense\u00f1ar el uso instrumental de herramientas digitales, sino formar profesionales capaces de dirigir \u00e9ticamente la inteligencia artificial<\/strong>, auditar sus sesgos, anticipar consecuencias sociales y emplearla como plataforma operativa para resolver problemas reales del territorio.<\/p>\n

El cap\u00edtulo tambi\u00e9n distingue entre desarrollo sostenible y desarrollo social sostenible<\/strong>, colocando la justicia, la dignidad humana, la inclusi\u00f3n y la mejora medible de las condiciones de vida como ejes de la formaci\u00f3n. Asimismo, propone pasar de la contextualizaci\u00f3n a la territorializaci\u00f3n: no se trata solo de estudiar problemas del entorno, sino de actuar con las comunidades para transformar sus causas estructurales.<\/p>\n

En s\u00edntesis, el cap\u00edtulo es relevante porque ofrece una arquitectura pedag\u00f3gica para redise\u00f1ar curr\u00edculo, evaluaci\u00f3n, docencia y roles profesionales en la era de la IA. Su mayor aporte es afirmar que el valor humano no est\u00e1 en competir con las m\u00e1quinas en procesamiento de informaci\u00f3n, sino en orientar la tecnolog\u00eda hacia la justicia social, el bien com\u00fan y la transformaci\u00f3n territorial.<\/p>\n

Chinese Synthesis \/ \u4e2d\u6587\u7efc\u5408\u6982\u8ff0<\/h2>\n

\u672c\u7ae0\u63d0\u51fa\uff0c\u5728\u4eba\u5de5\u667a\u80fd\u8fc5\u901f\u53d1\u5c55\u7684\u65f6\u4ee3\uff0c\u9ad8\u7b49\u6559\u80b2\u6b63\u9762\u4e34\u6df1\u523b\u7684\u76f8\u5173\u6027\u5371\u673a\u3002\u4f20\u7edf\u6559\u80b2\u957f\u671f\u91cd\u89c6\u77e5\u8bc6\u4f20\u6388\u3001\u8ba4\u77e5\u6280\u80fd\u548c\u804c\u4e1a\u80fd\u529b\uff0c\u4f46\u8fd9\u4e9b\u80fd\u529b\u8d8a\u6765\u8d8a\u5bb9\u6613\u88ab\u4eba\u5de5\u667a\u80fd\u81ea\u52a8\u5316\u3002\u56e0\u6b64\uff0c\u4f5c\u8005\u4e3b\u5f20\u6559\u80b2\u5fc5\u987b\u4ece\u201c\u5b66\u4e60\u201d\u8f6c\u5411\u201c\u4eba\u7684\u6574\u4f53\u5f62\u6210\u201d\uff0c\u91cd\u70b9\u57f9\u517b\u4f26\u7406\u5224\u65ad\u3001\u793e\u4f1a\u6279\u5224\u610f\u8bc6\u3001\u5171\u540c\u5229\u76ca\u610f\u8bc6\u4ee5\u53ca\u6539\u9020\u73b0\u5b9e\u95ee\u9898\u7684\u80fd\u529b\u3002<\/p>\n

\u672c\u7ae0\u7684\u6838\u5fc3\u521b\u65b0\u5728\u4e8e\u63d0\u51fa\u201c\u793e\u4f1a\u5f62\u6210\u201d\u4f5c\u4e3a\u4e00\u79cd\u9762\u5411\u4eba\u5de5\u667a\u80fd\u65f6\u4ee3\u7684\u6559\u80b2\u6a21\u5f0f\u3002\u4eba\u5de5\u667a\u80fd\u4e0d\u5e94\u6210\u4e3a\u6559\u80b2\u7684\u6700\u7ec8\u76ee\u7684\uff0c\u800c\u5e94\u6210\u4e3a\u7531\u4eba\u7c7b\u4f26\u7406\u610f\u8bc6\u6240\u5f15\u5bfc\u7684\u64cd\u4f5c\u5e73\u53f0\u3002\u6559\u80b2\u7684\u4efb\u52a1\u4e0d\u662f\u7b80\u5355\u5730\u8bad\u7ec3\u5b66\u751f\u4f7f\u7528\u4eba\u5de5\u667a\u80fd\uff0c\u800c\u662f\u57f9\u517b\u4ed6\u4eec\u80fd\u591f\u5ba1\u67e5\u7b97\u6cd5\u504f\u89c1\u3001\u5224\u65ad\u793e\u4f1a\u540e\u679c\u3001\u6574\u5408\u8de8\u5b66\u79d1\u77e5\u8bc6\uff0c\u5e76\u4e0e\u793e\u533a\u5171\u540c\u89e3\u51b3\u771f\u5b9e\u7684\u5730\u65b9\u6027\u95ee\u9898\u3002<\/p>\n

\u672c\u7ae0\u8fd8\u5f3a\u8c03\u4ece\u201c\u53ef\u6301\u7eed\u53d1\u5c55\u201d\u8f6c\u5411\u201c\u53ef\u6301\u7eed\u793e\u4f1a\u53d1\u5c55\u201d\uff0c\u628a\u4eba\u7684\u5c0a\u4e25\u3001\u793e\u4f1a\u6b63\u4e49\u3001\u5305\u5bb9\u6027\u548c\u751f\u6d3b\u6761\u4ef6\u7684\u53ef\u8861\u91cf\u6539\u5584\u4f5c\u4e3a\u6559\u80b2\u7684\u6838\u5fc3\u76ee\u6807\u3002\u5b83\u8fdb\u4e00\u6b65\u63d0\u51fa\u4ece\u201c\u60c5\u5883\u5316\u201d\u8d70\u5411\u201c\u5730\u57df\u5316\u201d\uff1a\u6559\u80b2\u4e0d\u5e94\u53ea\u662f\u628a\u73b0\u5b9e\u95ee\u9898\u4f5c\u4e3a\u8bfe\u5802\u6848\u4f8b\uff0c\u800c\u5e94\u8ba9\u5b66\u751f\u3001\u6559\u5e08\u548c\u793e\u533a\u5171\u540c\u53c2\u4e0e\u73b0\u5b9e\u95ee\u9898\u7684\u8f6c\u5316\u3002<\/p>\n

\u603b\u4f53\u800c\u8a00\uff0c\u672c\u7ae0\u7684\u91cd\u8981\u6027\u5728\u4e8e\uff0c\u5b83\u4e3a\u4eba\u5de5\u667a\u80fd\u65f6\u4ee3\u7684\u8bfe\u7a0b\u3001\u8bc4\u4ef7\u3001\u6559\u5e08\u89d2\u8272\u548c\u4e13\u4e1a\u89d2\u8272\u63d0\u4f9b\u4e86\u65b0\u7684\u6559\u80b2\u6846\u67b6\u3002\u4eba\u7684\u4ef7\u503c\u4e0d\u5728\u4e8e\u4e0e\u673a\u5668\u7ade\u4e89\u4fe1\u606f\u5904\u7406\u80fd\u529b\uff0c\u800c\u5728\u4e8e\u4ee5\u4f26\u7406\u3001\u793e\u4f1a\u8d23\u4efb\u548c\u6279\u5224\u610f\u8bc6\u5f15\u5bfc\u6280\u672f\u670d\u52a1\u4e8e\u5171\u540c\u5229\u76ca\u3002<\/p>\n

Synthesis:<\/strong>
The chapter\u2019s core thesis is that education must stop preparing students to compete with AI in cognitive performance and start forming human beings who can ethically direct AI toward the transformation of real problems. Its strongest contribution is the integration of pedagogy, AI governance, sustainability, social justice, and curriculum reform into a coherent socioformative framework. Its next challenge is empirical: to demonstrate, through implementation studies and measurable indicators, how this model transforms institutions, communities, and professional formation in diverse contexts.<\/p>\n