The Impact of Generative AI Use, AI Literacy, and AI Usage Ethics On Critical Thinking Skills Among Students at Universitas Negeri Semarang

Authors

  • Gilang Ramadhan Universitas Negeri Semarang, Indonesia
  • Anis Susanti Universitas Negeri Semarang, Indonesia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.21009/improvement.v13i1.68359

Keywords:

AI Ethics, AI Literacy, Critical Thinking, Generative AI, Students

Abstract

This study examines the influence of Generative AI use, AI literacy, and AI ethics on university students’ critical thinking skills because the rapid adoption of AI in higher education may support learning, but it may also weaken independent reasoning if it is used without adequate understanding and ethical control. The study employed a quantitative associative design with a survey method. Data were collected through a Likert-scale questionnaire from 180 active students in the Office Administration Education Program at Universitas Negeri Semarang and analyzed using instrument testing, classical assumption tests, and multiple linear regression with SPSS 26. The findings show that Generative AI use, AI literacy, and AI ethics each have a positive and significant effect on critical thinking skills, both partially and simultaneously. AI literacy emerged as the most dominant predictor among the three variables. These results indicate that students’ critical thinking is strengthened not only by using AI tools, but also by understanding how AI works and applying responsible academic ethics in their use. However, given the study's cross-sectional design, reliance on self-reported metrics, and narrow focus on a single program at one institution, the generalizability of these outcomes requires cautious interpretation.

Downloads

Published

2026-06-30

How to Cite

Ramadhan, G., & Anis Susanti. (2026). The Impact of Generative AI Use, AI Literacy, and AI Usage Ethics On Critical Thinking Skills Among Students at Universitas Negeri Semarang . Improvement: Jurnal Ilmiah Untuk Peningkatan Mutu Manajemen Pendidikan, 13(1), 63–77. https://doi.org/10.21009/improvement.v13i1.68359