AI GENERATIF DAN PENULISAN AKADEMIK BAHASA MELAYU: PEMBANGUNAN KERANGKA KONSEPTUAL BERASASKAN TPB–TAM DAN LITERASI AI UNTUK KONTEKS PELAJAR UNIVERSITI
AI GENERATIF DAN PENULISAN AKADEMIK BAHASA MELAYU: PEMBANGUNAN KERANGKA KONSEPTUAL BERASASKAN TPB–TAM DAN LITERASI AI UNTUK KONTEKS PELAJAR UNIVERSITI
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.35631/IJMOE.830025Keywords:
AI Generatif (Generative AI), Bahasa Melayu (Malay Language), Literasi AI (AI Literacy), Niat Penggunaan (Intent of Use), Penulisan Akademik (Academic Writing), TPB, TAMAbstract
Kertas ini membangunkan satu kerangka konseptual baharu untuk menjelaskan niat pelajar universiti menggunakan AI generatif (contohnya chatbot berasaskan model bahasa) bagi menyokong penulisan akademik Bahasa Melayu. Berbeza daripada kajian terdahulu yang menumpukan penggunaan AI untuk meningkatkan kemahiran literasi secara umum, kajian ini menumpukan konteks penulisan akademik yang melibatkan keperluan ketepatan bahasa, integriti akademik serta kebolehan menilai output AI. Berpandukan Teori Tingkah Laku Terancang (TPB) dan Model Penerimaan Teknologi (TAM), kertas ini mengintegrasikan konstruk literasi AI (keupayaan memahami batasan, menyemak fakta, dan mengurus risiko plagiarisme) sebagai pemboleh ubah penjelas yang mempengaruhi sikap, norma subjektif, kawalan tingkah laku dirasai, serta persepsi kegunaan dan kemudahan penggunaan. Melalui sintesis literatur dan pemetaan konsep, kerangka yang dicadangkan mengemukakan laluan hubungan antara faktor psikososial, pengalaman penggunaan AI, dan niat penggunaan beretika. Kertas ini menyediakan implikasi praktikal untuk reka bentuk intervensi pengajaran, garis panduan penggunaan AI di universiti, serta agenda penyelidikan masa hadapan termasuk pengesahan empirikal menggunakan data tinjauan dan pemodelan statistik.
This paper develops a new conceptual framework to explain university students’ intentions to use generative AI (e.g., language model-based chatbots) to support academic writing in Malay. Different from previous studies that focused on the use of AI to improve literacy skills in general, this study focuses on the context of academic writing involving the requirements of language accuracy, academic integrity, and the ability to evaluate AI output. Guided by the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) and the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM), this paper integrates AI literacy constructs (the ability to understand limitations, check facts, and manage the risk of plagiarism) as explanatory variables that influence attitudes, subjective norms, perceived behavioral control, and perceptions of usefulness and ease of use. Through literature synthesis and concept mapping, the proposed framework presents the relationship pathways between psychosocial factors, AI usage experiences, and ethical usage intentions. This paper provides practical implications for the design of instructional interventions, guidelines for the use of AI in universities, and future research agendas including empirical validation using survey data and statistical modeling.
Downloads
References
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. *Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50*(2), 179–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T
Bender, E. M., Gebru, T., McMillan-Major, A., & Shmitchell, S. (2021). On the dangers of stochastic parrots: Can language models be too big? In *Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAccT ’21)* (pp. 610–623). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3442188.3445922
Bin-Nashwan, S. A., Sadallah, M., & Bouteraa, M. (2023). Use of ChatGPT in academia: Academic integrity hangs in the balance. *Technology in Society, 75*, 102370. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2023.102370
Cotton, D. R. E., Cotton, P. A., & Shipway, J. R. (2024). Chatting and cheating: Ensuring academic integrity in the era of ChatGPT. *Innovations in Education and Teaching International*. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2023.2190148
Chiu, T. K. F., Ahmad, Z., Ismailov, M., & Sanusi, I. T. (2024). What are artificial intelligence literacy and competency? A comprehensive framework to support them. *Computers and Education Open, 6*, 100171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeo.2024.100171
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. *MIS Quarterly, 13*(3), 319–340. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008
Ittefaq, M., Zain, A., Arif, R., Ahmad, T., Khan, L., & Seo, H. (2025). Factors influencing international students’ adoption of generative artificial intelligence: The mediating role of perceived values and attitudes. Journal of International Students, 15(7), 127–154. https://doi.org/10.32674/fnwdpn48
Ivanov, S., Soliman, M., Tuomi, A., Alkathiri, N. A., & Al-Alawi, A. N. (2024). Drivers of generative AI adoption in higher education through the lens of the theory of planned behaviour. Technology in Society, 77, Article 102521. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2024.102521
Kasneci, E., Sessler, K., Küchemann, S., Bannert, M., Dementieva, D., Fischer, F., Gasser, U., Groh, G., Günnemann, S., Hüllermeier, E., Krusche, S., Kutyniok, G., Michaeli, T., Nerdel, C., Pfeffer, J., Poquet, O., Sailer, M., Schmidt, A., Seidel, T., Stadler, M., ... Kasneci, G. (2023). ChatGPT for good? On opportunities and challenges of large language models for education. *Computers & Education: Artificial Intelligence, 4*, 100114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2023.100114
Miao, F., & Holmes, W. (2023). *Guidance for generative AI in education and research*. UNESCO. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000386693
Mills, K., & colleagues. (2024). *AI literacy: A framework to understand, evaluate, and use artificial intelligence*. Digital Promise. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED671235.pdf
Ng, D. T. K., Leung, J. K. L., Chu, K. W. S., & Qiao, M. S. (2021). AI literacy: Definition, teaching, evaluation and ethical issues. Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 58(1), 504–509. https://doi.org/10.1002/pra2.487
OpenAI. (2023). *GPT-4 technical report*. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2303.08774
Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. *Management Science, 46*(2), 186–204. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.11926
Wang, C., Wang, H., Li, Y., Dai, J., Gu, X., & Yu, T. (2024). Factors influencing university students’ behavioral intention to use generative artificial intelligence: Integrating the theory of planned behavior and AI literacy. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2024.2383033
Yang, H., Xu, N., Lin, X., & Zhang, W. (2025). Integrating AI literacy into the TAM-TPB model to explain students’ intention to use educational AI through MASEM approach. Computers in Human Behavior Reports, 19, Article 100833. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chbr.2025.100833
Zhang, X., Hu, X., Sun, Y., Li, L., Deng, S., & Chen, X. (2025). Integrating AI literacy with the TPB-TAM framework to explore Chinese university students’ adoption of generative AI Behavioral Sciences, 15(10), 1398. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs15101398
