LECTURERS' ACCEPTANCE OF GENERATIVE AI FOR OBE-BASED CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT IN ISLAMIC HIGHER EDUCATION: THE ROLES OF AI LITERACY, PERCEIVED USEFULNESS, AND TRUST


Authors

(1) * Dikdik Firman Sidik   (Universitas Persatuan Islam, West Java, Indonesia)  
        Indonesia
(*) Corresponding Author

Abstract


The integration of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) into higher education has created new possibilities for supporting complex academic tasks, yet its adoption for outcome-based education (OBE) curriculum development remains underexplored, particularly within Islamic higher education contexts. This study examines the roles of AI literacy, perceived usefulness, and trust in shaping lecturers' acceptance of GenAI for OBE-based curriculum development. Drawing on an extended Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) framework, the study proposes a parallel mediation model in which AI literacy serves as an antecedent that influences behavioral intention both directly and indirectly through perceived usefulness and trust as distinct mediating mechanisms. A quantitative cross-sectional survey was conducted with 248 lecturers from Indonesian Islamic higher education institutions who were involved in curriculum development activities. Data were analyzed using Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM). The results revealed that AI literacy significantly and positively influenced perceived usefulness (β = 0.562, p < 0.001) and trust (β = 0.527, p < 0.001). Both perceived usefulness (β = 0.353, p < 0.001) and trust (β = 0.328, p < 0.001) significantly predicted acceptance, while AI literacy also exerted a significant direct effect (β = 0.238, p < 0.001). Mediation analysis confirmed that perceived usefulness and trust function as complementary partial mediators, with the total indirect effect (β = 0.371, p < 0.001) accounting for 65.5% of AI literacy's total effect on acceptance. The model explained 47.2% of the variance in lecturers' acceptance. These findings contribute theoretically by extending TAM with AI literacy as a multidimensional antecedent and by empirically validating parallel cognitive and relational pathways to GenAI acceptance in a task-specific professional context. Practically, the study provides evidence-based recommendations for Islamic higher education institutions seeking to promote responsible GenAI adoption through comprehensive AI literacy development, simultaneous attention to utility demonstration and trust-building, and institutionalized human-in-the-loop verification protocols.

Keywords

Generative AI, Technology Acceptance Model, Outcome-Based Education, Curriculum Development, Islamic Higher Education, PLS-SEM



Full Text: PDF



References


Acquah, B. Y. S., Arthur, F., Salifu, I., Quayson, E., & Nortey, S. A. (2024). Preservice teachers’ behavioural intention to use artificial intelligence in lesson planning: A dual-staged PLS-SEM-ANN approach. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 7, 100307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2024.100307

Al-Abdullatif, A. M. (2024). Modeling teachers’ acceptance of generative artificial intelligence use in higher education: The role of AI literacy, Intelligent TPACK, and perceived trust. Education Sciences, 14(11), 1209. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14111209

Balaskas, S., Tsiantos, V., Chatzifotiou, S., & Rigou, M. (2025). Determinants of ChatGPT adoption intention in higher education: Expanding on TAM with the mediating roles of trust and risk. Information, 16(2), 82. https://doi.org/10.3390/info16020082

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W.H. Freeman.

Becker, J.-M., Klein, K., & Wetzels, M. (2012). Hierarchical latent variable models in PLS-SEM: Guidelines for using reflective-formative type models. Long Range Planning, 45(5–6), 359–394. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2012.10.001

Biggs, J. (1996). Enhancing teaching through constructive alignment. Higher Education, 32(3), 347–364. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00138871

Chan, C. K. Y. (2023). A comprehensive AI policy education framework for university teaching and learning. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 20, 38. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-023-00408-3

Choi, S., Jang, Y., & Kim, H. (2023). Influence of pedagogical beliefs and perceived trust on teachers’ acceptance of educational artificial intelligence tools. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 39(4), 910–922. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2022.2049145

Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly: Management Information Systems, 13(3), 319–339. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008

Farrokhnia, M., Banihashem, S. K., Noroozi, O., & Wals, A. (2024). A SWOT analysis of ChatGPT: Implications for educational practice and research. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 61(3), 460–474. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2023.2195846

Habibi, A., Muhaimin, M., Danibao, B. K., Wibowo, Y. G., Wahyuni, S., & Octavia, A. (2023). ChatGPT in higher education learning: Acceptance and use. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 5, 100190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2023.100190

Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2022). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) (3rd ed.). Sage. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-80519-7

Harden, R. M. (2007). Outcome-based education: The future is today. Medical Teacher, 29(7), 625–629. https://doi.org/10.1080/01421590701729930

Kock, N. (2015). Common method bias in PLS-SEM: A full collinearity assessment approach. International Journal of E-Collaboration, 11(4), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.4018/ijec.2015100101

Lo, C. K. (2023). What is the impact of ChatGPT on education? A rapid review of the literature. Education Sciences, 13(4), 410. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13040410

Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709–734. https://doi.org/10.2307/258792

Miao, F., & Cukurova, M. (2024). AI competency framework for teachers. UNESCO. https://doi.org/10.54675/ZJTE2084

Miao, F., & Holmes, W. (2023). Guidance for generative AI in education and research. UNESCO. https://doi.org/10.54675/EWZM9535

Ng, D. T. K., Leung, J. K. L., Chu, S. K. W., & Qiao, M. S. (2021). Conceptualizing AI literacy: An exploratory review. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 2, 100041. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2021.100041

Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40(3), 879–891. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.40.3.879

Scherer, R., Siddiq, F., & Tondeur, J. (2019). The technology acceptance model (TAM): A meta-analytic structural equation modeling approach to explaining teachers’ adoption of digital technology in education. Computers & Education, 128, 13–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.09.009

Shahzad, M. F., Xu, S., & Asif, M. (2025). Factors affecting generative artificial intelligence, such as ChatGPT, use in higher education: An application of technology acceptance model. British Educational Research Journal, 51(2), 489–513. https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.4084

Spady, W. G. (1994). Outcome-based education: Critical issues and answers. American Association of School Administrators.

UNESCO. (2023). Guidance for generative AI in education and research. UNESCO Publishing.

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

Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478. https://doi.org/10.2307/30036540

Wang, B., Rau, P.-L. P., & Yuan, T. (2023). Measuring user competence in using artificial intelligence: Validity and reliability of artificial intelligence literacy scale. Behaviour & Information Technology, 42(9), 1324–1337. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2022.2072768

Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Sage.

Zhao, X., Lynch, J. G., & Chen, Q. (2010). Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: Myths and truths about mediation analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, 37(2), 197–206. https://doi.org/10.1086/651257




Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Copyright (c) 2026 Dikdik Firman Sidik