Lecturers’ Perceptions of Artificial Intelligence Use in Higher Education: A Comparative Study of Indonesia and Malaysia
Abstract
Abstrak
Integrasi kecerdasan buatan (AI) semakin memengaruhi praktik pembelajaran di pendidikan tinggi, baik dalam efektivitas pedagogis maupun dinamika interaksi akademik. Penelitian ini menganalisis bagaimana dosen di Indonesia dan Malaysia memaknai serta mempraktikkan penggunaan AI, sekaligus mengidentifikasi faktor yang membentuk persamaan dan perbedaannya. Pendekatan kualitatif dengan desain comparative case study digunakan, melibatkan 30 dosen melalui survei naratif dan wawancara semi-terstruktur. Data dianalisis menggunakan Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) dan analisis tematik. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa AI dipandang sebagai alat yang meningkatkan efisiensi kerja akademik dan mendukung pengembangan materi pembelajaran. Namun, muncul kekhawatiran mengenai ketergantungan mahasiswa, penurunan kemampuan berpikir kritis, serta akurasi keluaran AI. Perbedaan antarnegara terlihat pada kedalaman integrasi: dosen Malaysia cenderung lebih intensif memanfaatkan AI dalam aktivitas pembelajaran, sedangkan dosen Indonesia lebih berhati-hati dan menekankan verifikasi manual. Faktor kebijakan institusional, literasi digital, dan budaya akademik turut membentuk variasi tersebut. Temuan ini menegaskan pentingnya kebijakan penggunaan AI yang jelas serta penguatan literasi etis bagi dosen dan mahasiswa.
Kata kunci: analisis fenomenologi interpretatif (IPA), dosen, kecerdasan buatan, pendidikan tinggi
Abstract
The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly influencing learning practices in higher education, both in pedagogical effectiveness and in the dynamics of academic interaction. This study analyzes how lecturers in Indonesia and Malaysia interpret and practice the use of AI while identifying factors that form similarities and differences. A qualitative approach with a comparative case study design was used, involving 30 lecturers through narrative surveys and semi-structured interviews. The data were analyzed using Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) and thematic analysis. The results show that AI is considered a tool that improves the efficiency of academic work and supports the development of learning materials. However, there are concerns about student dependency, decreased critical thinking skills, and the accuracy of AI output. Differences between countries can be seen in the depth of integration: Malaysian lecturers tend to use AI more intensively in learning activities, while Indonesian lecturers are more cautious and emphasize manual verification. Institutional policy factors, digital literacy, and academic culture also influence these variations. The findings emphasize the value of developing clear AI policies and strengthening ethical literacy for faculty and students.
Keywords: artificial intelligence, higher education, Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA)
References
Bartlett, L., & Vavrus, F. (2017). Comparative Case Studies: An Innovative Approach. Nordic Journal of Comparative and International Education (NJCIE), 1(1). https://doi.org/10.7577/njcie.1929
Ben Williamson. (2019). Datafication of Education . In Rethinking Pedagogy for a Digital Age (3rd Edition, p. 15). Routledge. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351252805
Cotton, D. R. E., Cotton, P. A., & Shipway, J. R. (2023). Chatting and Cheating: Ensuring academic integrity in the era of ChatGPT. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 228–239. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2023.2190148
Enkelejda Kasneci, Kathrin Sessler, Stefan Küchemann, Maria Bannert, Daryna Dementieva, Frank Fischer, Urs Gasser, Georg Groh, Stephan Günnemann, Eyke Hüllermeier, Stephan Krusche, Gitta Kutyniok, Tilman Michaeli, Claudia Nerdel, Jürgen Pfeffer, Oleksandra Poquet, Michael Sailer, Albrecht Schmidt, Tina Seidel, … Gjergji Kasneci. (2023). ChatGPT for good? On opportunities and challenges of large language models for education. Learning and Individual Differences, 103. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2023.102274
Erin Green, Divya Singh, & Roland Chia. (2022). AI Ethics and Higher Education Good Practice and Guidance for Educators, Learners, and Institutions (pp. 4–326). Globethics.net. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.58863/20.500.12424/4146302
Helmiatin, Hidayat, A., & Kahar, M. R. (2024). Investigating the adoption of AI in higher education: a study of public universities in Indonesia. Cogent Education, 11(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2024.2380175
Isono, I., & Prilliadi, H. (2023). Accelerating Artificial Intelligence Discussions in ASEAN: Addressing Disparities, Challenges, and Regional Policy Imperatives. 1–39.
John W. Creswell. (2014). Research Design, Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches (fourth edi). SAGE Publication.
Li, W. (2024). The Influence of Artificial Intelligence on the Education System. Lecture Notes in Education Psychology and Public Media, 65(1), 137–142. https://doi.org/10.54254/2753-7048/65/20240158
Mimoudi, A. (2024). AI, Personalized Education, and Challenges. International Conference on Al Research, 4(1), 271–280. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.34190/icair.4.1.3133
Mishra, S. (2025). Artificial Intelligence as a Mediator between Educator and Learner: The New Paradigm Shift. International Journal Of Research And Innovation In Applied Science (IJRIAS), 7, 91–95. https://doi.org/10.51584/IJRIAS
Bartlett, L., & Vavrus, F. (2017). Comparative Case Studies: An Innovative Approach. Nordic Journal of Comparative and International Education (NJCIE), 1(1). https://doi.org/10.7577/njcie.1929
Ben Williamson. (2019). Datafication of Education . In Rethinking Pedagogy for a Digital Age (3rd Edition, p. 15). Routledge. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351252805
Cotton, D. R. E., Cotton, P. A., & Shipway, J. R. (2023). Chatting and Cheating: Ensuring academic integrity in the era of ChatGPT. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 228–239. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2023.2190148
Enkelejda Kasneci, Kathrin Sessler, Stefan Küchemann, Maria Bannert, Daryna Dementieva, Frank Fischer, Urs Gasser, Georg Groh, Stephan Günnemann, Eyke Hüllermeier, Stephan Krusche, Gitta Kutyniok, Tilman Michaeli, Claudia Nerdel, Jürgen Pfeffer, Oleksandra Poquet, Michael Sailer, Albrecht Schmidt, Tina Seidel, … Gjergji Kasneci. (2023). ChatGPT for good? On opportunities and challenges of large language models for education. Learning and Individual Differences, 103. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2023.102274
Erin Green, Divya Singh, & Roland Chia. (2022). AI Ethics and Higher Education Good Practice and Guidance for Educators, Learners, and Institutions (pp. 4–326). Globethics.net. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.58863/20.500.12424/4146302
Helmiatin, Hidayat, A., & Kahar, M. R. (2024). Investigating the adoption of AI in higher education: a study of public universities in Indonesia. Cogent Education, 11(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2024.2380175
Isono, I., & Prilliadi, H. (2023). Accelerating Artificial Intelligence Discussions in ASEAN: Addressing Disparities, Challenges, and Regional Policy Imperatives. 1–39.
John W. Creswell. (2014). Research Design, Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches (fourth edi). SAGE Publication.
Li, W. (2024). The Influence of Artificial Intelligence on the Education System. Lecture Notes in Education Psychology and Public Media, 65(1), 137–142. https://doi.org/10.54254/2753-7048/65/20240158
Mimoudi, A. (2024). AI, Personalized Education, and Challenges. International Conference on Al Research, 4(1), 271–280. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.34190/icair.4.1.3133
Mishra, S. (2025). Artificial Intelligence as a Mediator between Educator and Learner: The New Paradigm Shift. International Journal Of Research And Innovation In Applied Science (IJRIAS), 7, 91–95. https://doi.org/10.51584/IJRIAS
MyDigital Malaysia. (2024, December 12). The National AI Office (NAIO). Government of Malaysia. https://www.mydigital.gov.my/initiatives/the-national-ai-office-naio/
Ofosu-Ampong, K. (2024). Beyond the hype: exploring faculty perceptions and acceptability of AI in teaching practices. Discover Education, 3(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44217-024-00128-4
Porayska-Pomsta, K., Holmes, W., & Nemorin, S. (2024). The Ethics of Artificial Intelligence in Education (1st Edition). Routledge. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429329067
Rajassekharan, D., Ameen, A., & Midhunchakkravarthy, D. (2020). Examining the Acceptance of Innovations in Learning Technologies in Higher Education—A Malaysian Perspective. Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems, 118, 179–187. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-3284-9_21
Rana, M., Sall, S., Sagvekar Bijoor, V., Gaiwad, V., Gaikwad, U. V., Patil, P., & Meher, K. (2024). Obstacles to the Full Realization and Adoption of Artificial Intelligence (AI). South Eastern European Journal of Public Health, 25, 1003–1016. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.70135/seejph.vi.2251
Reuters. (2024, December 12). Malaysia launches national AI office for policy, regulation. Reuters News Service. https://www.reuters.com/technology/artificial-intelligence/malaysia-launches-national-ai-office-policy-regulation-2024-12-12/
Robert K. Yin. (2018). Case Study: Design and Methods. In Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation (6th Edition, Issue 1). SAGE Publications, Inc. https://uk.sagepub.com/en-gb/eur/case-study-research-and-applications/book250150
Selwyn, N. (2024). On the Limits of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Education. Nordisk Tidsskrift for Pedagogikk Og Kritikk, 10(1). https://doi.org/10.23865/ntpk.v10.6062
Smith, J. A., & Nizza, I. E. (2022). Essentials of interpretative phenomenological analysis. American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0000259-000
UNESCO. (2023, September 7). Guidance for generative AI in education and research. UNESCO Publishing. https://www.unesco.org/en/articles/guidance-generative-ai-education-and-research
Virginia Braun, & Victoria Clarke. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
