Student Resistance to ChatGPT in Indonesia: Extended IRT with PLS-SEM Analysis

Authors

  • Andi Muhammad Faiz Iqbal Universitas Negeri Makassar Author
  • Nurul Hasmi Universitas Negeri Makassar Author
  • Devi Miftahul Jannah Universitas Negeri Makassar Author
  • Rizki Wahyu Hunian Putra Universitas Islam Negeri Raden Intan Lampung image/svg+xml Author

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.61220/qnt8ve48

Keywords:

Academic ethics, ChatGPT, Innovation resistance theory, PLS-SEM, Student resistance

Abstract

The integration of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in higher education is growing, including the use of ChatGPT as a tool to assist students academically by improving access to information and promoting independent learning. Nonetheless, some students have shown reluctance due to worries about its reliability, academic morals, and changes in conventional learning principles. This research intends to explore how various barriers, such as usage barrier, value barrier, risk barrier, tradition barrier, image barrier, perceived cost barrier, and ethical considerations, contribute to student hesitance regarding ChatGPT. A quantitative method was utilized through Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM), gathering data from an online survey of 77 students from Universitas Negeri Makassar. Findings reveal that only the risk barrier (β = 0. 417; p = 0. 006) and the tradition barrier (β = −0. 400; p = 0. 029) have a significant impact on resistance, with the risk barrier being the most influential, while the other factors showed no notable effects. These results suggest that psychological and cultural factors are more significant than practical obstacles in influencing resistance to generative AI and broaden the Innovation Resistance Theory (IRT) by factoring in ethical issues. The study advises creating teaching strategies that find a balance between using technology and maintaining academic honesty, while also promoting further research through multigroup and longitudinal methods.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

[1] I. W. B. D. Gotama, A. I. A. Robyh, K. Febiantara, and S. Hariyadi, “Dampak dan Kemajuan DAMPAK PERKEMBANGAN AI (ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE) DALAM KEMAJUAN REVOLUSI INDUSTRI 5.0: Peran AI dalam Perkembangan Industri Menuju Revolusi 5.0,” Jurnal Penelitian, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 149–157, 2024.

[2] K. Marlin, E. Tantrisna, B. Mardikawati, R. Anggraini, and E. Susilawati, “Manfaat dan Tantangan Penggunaan Artificial Intelligences (AI) Chat GPT Terhadap Proses Pendidikan Etika dan Kompetensi Mahasiswa Di Perguruan Tinggi,” Innovative: Journal Of Social Science Research, vol. 3, no. 6, pp. 5192–5201, 2023.

[3] B. A. Dewantara and L. K. Dewi, “Generative AI dalam Pembelajaran Mahasiswa: Antara Inovasi Pendidikan dan Integritas Akademik,” JIIP-Jurnal Ilmiah Ilmu Pendidikan, vol. 8, no. 7, pp. 8209–8217, 2025.

[4] S. Alghamdi and Y. Alhasawi, “Exploring the factors influencing the adoption of ChatGPT in educational institutions: insights from innovation resistance theory,” Journal of Applied Data Sciences, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 474–490, 2024.

[5] D. R. E. Cotton, P. A. Cotton, and J. R. Shipway, “Chatting and cheating: Ensuring academic integrity in the era of ChatGPT,” Innovations in education and teaching international, vol. 61, no. 2, pp. 228–239, 2024.

[6] D. Dwihadiah, A. Gerungan, H. Purba, and others, “Penggunaan ChatGPT di kalangan mahasiswa dan dosen perguruan tinggi Indonesia,” CoverAge: Journal of Strategic Communication, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 130–145, 2024.

[7] A. Kusumastuti, A. M. Khoiron, and T. A. Achmad, Metode penelitian kuantitatif. Deepublish, 2021.

[8] M. Abduh, T. Alawiyah, G. Apriansyah, R. A. Sirodj, and M. W. Afgani, “Survey design: Cross sectional dalam penelitian kualitatif,” Jurnal Pendidikan Sains Dan Komputer, vol. 3, no. 01, pp. 31–39, 2023.

[9] J. Pallant, SPSS survival manual: A step by step guide to data analysis using IBM SPSS. Routledge, 2020.

[10] W. C. Yew, S. M. Kong, A. H. Awang, and G. R. Yi, “Developing a conceptual model for the causal effects of outdoor play in preschools using PLS-SEM,” Sustainability, vol. 14, no. 6, p. 3365, 2022.

[11] I. G. Juanamasta, Y. Aungsuroch, M. L. Fisher, and Nursalam, “Reliability and Validity of the Indonesian Version of the McCloskey/Mueller Satisfaction Scale,” J Nurs Manag, vol. 2023, no. 1, p. 9999650, 2023.

[12] M. A. Mahmoud, S. bin Ahmad, and D. A. L. Poespowidjojo, “Validation of the psychological safety, psychological empowerment, intrapreneurial behaviour and individual performance measurements,” RAUSP Management Journal, vol. 57, pp. 219–234, 2022.

[13] J. F. Hair Jr, G. T. M. Hult, C. M. Ringle, M. Sarstedt, N. P. Danks, and S. Ray, Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) using R: A workbook. Springer Nature, 2021.

[14] G. Franke and M. Sarstedt, “Heuristics versus statistics in discriminant validity testing: a comparison of four procedures,” Internet research, vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 430–447, 2019.

[15] R. Rhayha and A. Alaoui Ismaili, “Development and validation of an instrument to evaluate the perspective of using the electronic health record in a hospital setting,” BMC Med Inform Decis Mak, vol. 24, no. 1, p. 291, 2024.

[16] M. Sarstedt, J. F. Hair Jr, and C. M. Ringle, “‘PLS-SEM: indeed a silver bullet’–retrospective observations and recent advances,” Journal of Marketing theory and Practice, vol. 31, no. 3, pp. 261–275, 2023.

[17] S. Ahmed, D. M. Ashrafi, R. Ahmed, M. M. Choudhury, A. Al Masud, and R. Ahmed, “Unveiling consumer adoption intentions towards AI-powered home appliances in emerging economy,” The TQM Journal, pp. 1–24, 2025.

[18] A. Tierney, P. Peasey, and J. Gould, “Student perceptions on the impact of AI on their teaching and learning experiences in higher education.,” Res Pract Technol Enhanc Learn, vol. 20, 2025.

[19] R. N. Laili, W. A. Wirawati, and M. Nashir, “Student’s perception on the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) Chatgpt in English language learning: Benefits and challenges in higher education,” Edu Cendikia: Jurnal Ilmiah Kependidikan, vol. 4, no. 03, pp. 1389–1403, 2024.

[20] S. Balaskas, V. Tsiantos, S. Chatzifotiou, and M. Rigou, “Determinants of ChatGPT Adoption Intention in Higher Education: Expanding on TAM with the Mediating Roles of Trust and Risk,” Information, vol. 16, no. 2, p. 82, 2025.

[21] L. Munawaroh, M. A. Mulyadi, E. M. Aulia, R. Abrori, and others, “Systematic literature review (slr): peran artificial intelligence terhadap proses pembelajaran mahasiswa,” Jurnal Mahasiswa Sistem Informasi (JMSI), vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 403–412, 2025.

[22] S. Kim and T. Park, “Understanding Innovation Resistance on the Use of a New Learning Management System (LMS). Sustainability, 15 (16), 12627,” 2023.

[23] L. Yan et al., “Practical and ethical challenges of large language models in education: A systematic scoping review,” British Journal of Educational Technology, vol. 55, no. 1, pp. 90–112, 2024.

[24] V. Rana, B. Verhoeven, and M. Sharma, “Generative AI in design thinking pedagogy: Enhancing creativity, critical thinking, and ethical reasoning in higher education,” Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice, vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 1–22, 2025.

[25] Y. Wu, “Critical Thinking Pedagogics Design in an Era of ChatGPT and Other AI Tools—Shifting From Teaching ‘What’ to Teaching ‘Why’ and ‘How,’” Journal of Education and Development, vol. 8, no. 1, p. 1, 2024

Downloads

Published

15-12-2025

Issue

Vol 3, No 2 (2025): Desember 2025

Section

Articles

License

Copyright (c) 2025 Andi Muhammad Faiz Iqbal, Nurul Hasmi, Devi Miftahul Jannah, Rizki Wahyu Hunian Putra (Author)

Creative Commons License

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

How to Cite

Student Resistance to ChatGPT in Indonesia: Extended IRT with PLS-SEM Analysis. (2025). Journal of Vocational, Informatics and Computer Education, 3(2), 103-116. https://doi.org/10.61220/qnt8ve48