Modeling Generative AI Adoption in Higher Education: The Role of Interface Quality, Algorithmic Transparency, and Trust in Human-AI Interaction

Authors

  • Baiq Yulia Fitriyani STMIK Lombok, Indonesia
  • Khairul Imtihan STMIK Lombok, Indonesia
  • Amrullah STMIK Lombok, Indonesia
  • Maulana Ashari STMIK Lombok, Indonesia
  • Wire Bagye STMIK Lombok, Indonesia
Pages Icon

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.63158/journalisi.v8i3.1598

Keywords:

Artificial Intelligence, Higher Education, Human-AI Interaction, Trust in AI, Higher-Order Constructs, Hierarchical Component Model.

Abstract

This study examines generative artificial intelligence (AI) adoption in higher education by integrating interface quality, algorithmic transparency, and trust within a Human-AI Interaction framework. The study addresses limitations of traditional technology acceptance models, which often overlook psychological and relational factors in AI-enabled environments. Data were collected through a cross-sectional survey of 195 respondents, including students, lecturers, and administrative staff from higher education institutions in West Nusa Tenggara, Indonesia, within a cross-sectional regional sample, and analyzed using Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM). The results show that Trust in AI is the strongest predictor of Behavioral Intention (β = 0.623, p < 0.001), followed by Perceived Usefulness (β = 0.270, p < 0.05). Interface Quality significantly affects Perceived Ease of Use (β = 0.803), while Algorithmic Transparency strongly influences Perceived Control (β = 0.824) and Perceived Usefulness (β = 0.562). AI Anxiety was not found to have a significant direct or moderating effect. The model demonstrates substantial explanatory power (R² = 0.710) and strong predictive relevance. This study proposes an integrated dual-path model combining cognitive and affective mechanisms to explain generative AI adoption in higher education. The findings emphasize that AI systems should be designed not only for functionality, but also for trust, transparency, and user confidence.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

[1] C. Aaron, T. Heap, A. Archibald, L. Keyes, M. Novosad, and A. Fein, “Applications of human–AI interaction to optimize teaching workload and improve student writing,” J. Comput. High. Educ., pp. 1–33, 2025, doi: 10.1007/s12528-025-09474-0.

[2] H. Mulyani, M. A. Istiaq, E. R. Shauki, F. Kurniati, and H. Arlinda, “Transforming education: exploring the influence of generative AI on teaching performance,” Cogent Education, vol. 12, no. 1, p. 2448066, 2025, doi: 10.1080/2331186X.2024.2448066.

[3] P. Brusilovsky, “AI in education, learner control, and human-AI collaboration,” Int. J. Artif. Intell. Educ., vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 122–135, 2024, doi: 10.1007/s40593-023-00356-z.

[4] Y. Zhang and P. Reusch, “Trust in and adoption of generative AI in university education: opportunities, challenges, and implications,” in 2025 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON), IEEE, 2025, pp. 1–10. doi: 10.1109/EDUCON62633.2025.11016490.

[5] T. Budhathoki, A. Zirar, E. T. Njoya, and A. Timsina, “ChatGPT adoption and anxiety: a cross-country analysis utilising the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT),” Studies in Higher Education, vol. 49, no. 5, pp. 831–846, 2024, doi: 10.1080/03075079.2024.2333937.

[6] I. Cingillioglu and W. Barbieri, “From admiration to apprehension: the evolving role of generative AI in learning,” The International Journal of Information and Learning Technology, vol. 43, no. 1, pp. 7–25, 2026, doi: 10.1108/IJILT-11-2024-0262.

[7] X. Wu and H. Li, “A systematic review of AI anxiety in education,” AI and Ethics, vol. 5, no. 5, pp. 4773–4787, 2025, doi: 10.1007/s43681-025-00783-9.

[8] M. F. Shahzad, S. Xu, and M. Asif, “Factors affecting generative artificial intelligence, such as ChatGPT, use in higher education: An application of technology acceptance model,” Br. Educ. Res. J., vol. 51, no. 2, pp. 489–513, 2025, doi: 10.1002/berj.4084.

[9] H. Nanang, H. T. Sukmana, Y. Durachman, D. Khairani, V. Arifin, and M. Sobri, “Acceptance of AI in Education Systems: An Analysis Based on User Perceptions,” in 2025 Tenth International Conference on Informatics and Computing (ICIC), IEEE, 2025, pp. 1–5. doi: 10.1109/ICIC68054.2025.11309657.

[10] R. Adyaputra, K. Imtihan, and M. Saleh, “Assessing User Satisfaction of Local Government Websites Through ISO 25010 and Technology Acceptance Model (TAM): A SmartPLS and IPMA-Based Study in Lombok Tengah,” In Journal of Information and Organizational Sciences, vol. 49, no. 2, pp. 291–312, 2025, doi: 10.31341/jios.49.2.8.

[11] C. Or, “Understanding factors influencing AI adoption in education: Insights from a Meta-Analytic Structural Equation Modelling study,” Journal of Applied Learning & Teaching, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 102–115, 2025, doi: 10.37074/jalt.2025.8.1.26.

[12] L. Xue, N. Ghazali, and J. Mahat, “A Systematic Review of UTAUT and UTAUT2 for AI Adoption in Education,” Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact., pp. 1–25, 2025, doi: 10.1080/10447318.2025.2552867.

[13] K. Imtihan, Mardi, and M. Rodi, “The Impact of Visual Quality and User Interface Responsiveness on Student Satisfaction in Academic Information Systems (AIS),” Pakistan Journal of Life and Social Sciences (PJLSS), vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 19896–19906, 2024, doi: 10.57239/PJLSS-2024-22.2.001455.

[14] A. Alzahrani and A. Alzahrani, “Understanding ChatGPT adoption in universities: The impact of faculty TPACK and UTAUT2,” RIED-Revista Iberoamericana de Educación a Distancia, vol. 28, no. 1, 2025, doi: 10.5944/ried.28.1.41498.

[15] A. U. Rehman, M. A. Raza, and N. Abbas, “Understanding AI adoption In education: the role of readiness, confidence, and social influence among Pakistani students,” Innovation Journal of Social Sciences and Economic Review, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 64–78, 2025, doi: 10.36923/ijsser.v7i1.300.

[16] A. Aman, K. Imtihan, and M. Rodi, “Evaluating User Satisfaction and Public Engagement in Local Government Social Media,” International Journal of Engineering, Science and Information Technology, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 235–248, Jun. 2025, doi: 10.52088/ijesty.v5i3.905.

[17] R. Chanda and S. Sharma, “Human-AI Interaction in Higher Education: Understanding Through Anthropomorphism,” in International Conference on Leveraging Emerging Technologies and Analytics for Development, Springer, 2024, pp. 307–324. doi: 10.1007/978-981-96-8582-0_16.

[18] E. A. Watkins, E. Moss, G. Raffa, and L. Nachman, “What’s So Human about Human-AI Collaboration, Anyway? Generative AI and Human-Computer Interaction,” ArXiv, 2025, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2503.05926.

[19] H. Karuniawan, L. Mutawalli, and K. Imtihan, “Evaluating Digital Readiness and Teachers’ Perceptions of a Digital Based Performance Appraisal System in Secondary Schools,” Journal of Information Systems and Informatics, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 2617–2635, 2025, doi: 10.51519/journalisi.v7i3.1212.

[20] R. R. Divekar, S. Guerra, L. Gonzalez, and N. Boos, “Choosing between an llm versus search for learning: A highered student perspective,” ArXiv, 2024, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2409.13051.

[21] J. Kim, S. Yu, R. Detrick, X. Lin, and N. Li, “Designing AI-powered learning: Adult learners’ expectations for curriculum and human-AI interaction,” Educational technology research and development, vol. 73, no. 6, pp. 3397–3421, 2025, doi: 10.1007/s11423-025-10549-z.

[22] K. Imtihan, M. Rodi, W. Bagye, and B. Y. Fitriyani, “Integrating Technology Acceptance and Government Trust to Explain Public Engagement on Social Media: An IPMA-Based Study in Local E-Government Communication,” Applied Information System and Management (AISM), vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 245–256, Oct. 2025, doi: 10.15408/aism.v8i2.46660.

[23] T. Bitzer, M. Wiener, and W. A. Cram, “Algorithmic transparency: Concepts, antecedents, and consequences–a review and research framework,” Communications of the Association for Information Systems, vol. 52, no. 1, pp. 293–331, 2023, doi: 10.17705/1CAIS.05214.

[24] S. Grimmelikhuijsen, “Explaining why the computer says no: Algorithmic transparency affects the perceived trustworthiness of automated decision‐making,” Public Adm. Rev., vol. 83, no. 2, pp. 241–262, 2023, doi: 10.1111/puar.13483.

[25] C. Agostinho et al., “Explainability as the key ingredient for AI adoption in Industry 5.0 settings,” Front. Artif. Intell., vol. 6, p. 1264372, 2023, doi: 10.3389/frai.2023.1264372.

[26] S. Maity and A. Deroy, “Human-centric eXplainable AI in education,” ArXiv, 2024, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2410.19822.

[27] S. Gunasekara and M. Saarela, “Explainable AI in education: Techniques and qualitative assessment,” Applied Sciences, vol. 15, no. 3, p. 1239, 2025, doi: 10.3390/app15031239.

[28] Z. M. Altukhi and S. Pradhan, “Integrating Explainable AI in Education: Challenges and Advancements–A Systematic Review,” AIS Electronic Library, 2026, doi: 10.17705/1pais.18101.

[29] M. Qiang, Z. Liu, and R. Zhang, “Explainable AI in education: integrating educational domain knowledge into the deep learning model for improved student performance prediction,” Sci. Rep., 2026, doi: 10.1038/s41598-026-40538-y.

[30] H. Choung, P. David, and A. Ross, “Trust in AI and its role in the acceptance of AI technologies,” Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact., vol. 39, no. 9, pp. 1727–1739, 2023, doi: 10.1080/10447318.2022.2050543.

[31] A. D. Kaplan, T. T. Kessler, J. C. Brill, and P. A. Hancock, “Trust in artificial intelligence: Meta-analytic findings,” Hum. Factors, vol. 65, no. 2, pp. 337–359, 2023, doi: 10.1177/00187208211013988.

[32] G. R. Kennedy and V. G. Duffy, “Trust and automation-a systematic literature review,” in International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, Springer, 2023, pp. 418–434. doi: 10.1007/978-3-031-48057-7_26.

[33] K. K. L. Wong, Y. Han, Y. Cai, W. Ouyang, H. Du, and C. Liu, “From trust in automation to trust in AI in healthcare: A 30-year longitudinal review and an interdisciplinary framework,” Bioengineering, vol. 12, no. 10, p. 1070, 2025, doi: 10.3390/bioengineering12101070.

[34] M. Abuzar, “University Students’ Trust in AI: Examining Reliance and Strategies for Critical Engagement.,” International Journal of Interactive Mobile Technologies, vol. 19, no. 7, 2025, doi: 10.3991/ijim.v19i07.52875.

[35] D. Martín-Moncunill and D. Alonso Martínez, “Students’ Trust in AI and Their Verification Strategies: A Case Study at Camilo José Cela University,” Educ. Sci. (Basel)., vol. 15, no. 10, p. 1307, 2025, doi: 10.3390/educsci15101307.

[36] R. de Brito Duarte, F. Correia, P. Arriaga, and A. Paiva, “AI trust: Can explainable AI enhance warranted trust?,” Hum. Behav. Emerg. Technol., vol. 2023, no. 1, p. 4637678, 2023, doi: 10.1155/2023/4637678.

[37] M. Shabankareh, S. S. Khamoushi Sahne, A. Nazarian, and P. Foroudi, “The impact of AI perceived transparency on trust in AI recommendations in healthcare applications,” Asia-Pacific Journal of Business Administration, 2025, doi: 10.1108/APJBA-12-2024-0690.

[38] G. Biagini, S. Cuomo, and M. Ranieri, “Less knowledge, more trust? Exploring potentially uncritical attitudes towards AI in higher education,” Italian Journal of Educational Technology, vol. 32, pp. 37–52, 2024, doi: 10.17471/2499-4324/1337.

[39] P. Karimi and A. Martin-Hammond, “Finding the Right Balance: User Control and Automation in AI Tools for Supporting Older Adults’ Health Information Tasks,” in Proceedings of the Extended Abstracts of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 2025, pp. 1–10. doi: 10.1145/3706599.3719773.

[40] Y. Xu and L. Chen, “Personalized recommendations and consumer trust: The role of perceived control and locus of control,” Acta Psychol. (Amst)., vol. 261, p. 105936, 2025, doi: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2025.105936.

[41] J. H. Moon, S. Kim, Y. Jung, J. Bang, and Y. Sung, “The effects of explainability and user control on algorithmic transparency: the moderating role of algorithmic literacy,” Cyberpsychol. Behav. Soc. Netw., vol. 28, no. 7, pp. 497–504, 2025, doi: 10.1089/cyber.2024.0525.

[42] D. Ayduğ and H. Altınpulluk, “Are Turkish pre-service teachers worried about AI? A study on AI anxiety and digital literacy,” AI Soc., vol. 40, no. 8, pp. 5823–5834, 2025, doi: 10.1007/s00146-025-02348-0.

[43] Y. Darancik, E. Kaçar, and A. Sezik, “AI anxiety and awareness of German teacher candidates,” Educ. Inf. Technol. (Dordr)., vol. 30, no. 14, pp. 20215–20235, 2025, doi: 10.1007/s10639-025-13573-x.

[44] M. G. Mohamed et al., “Generative artificial intelligence acceptance, anxiety, and behavioral intention in the middle east: a TAM-based structural equation modelling approach,” BMC Nurs., vol. 24, no. 1, p. 703, 2025, doi: 10.1186/s12912-025-03436-8.

[45] A. Z. Abbasi, S. Azeem, and D. H. Ting, “Validating the HEXACO Malay version as reflective-formative model: the application of hierarchical component model,” Cogent Psychol., vol. 12, no. 1, p. 2466311, 2025, doi: 10.1080/23311908.2025.2466311.

[46] S. Hauff, N. F. Richter, and C. M. Ringle, “Human resource management systems research–how to gain impactful insights through formative measurement and hierarchical component models,” The InTernaTIonal Journal of human resource managemenT, vol. 36, no. 4, pp. 611–635, 2025, doi: 10.1080/09585192.2025.2464668.

[47] S. D. Gapud and J. F. Hair Jr, “Mindful Leadership Under Fire: A Validation Study of a Hierarchical Component Model,” in State of the Art in Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) Methodological Extensions and Applications in the Social Sciences and Beyond, Springer, 2023, pp. 245–276. doi: 10.1007/978-3-031-34589-0_24.

[48] M. Han, H. Mustafa, and S. Kharuddin, “AI adoption in accounting education: A UTAUT-based analysis of mediating and moderating mechanisms,” Journal of Pedagogical Research, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 191–205, 2025, doi: 10.33902/JPR.202532831.

[49] C. Crocetta et al., “Higher-order PLS-PM approach for different types of constructs,” Soc. Indic. Res., vol. 154, no. 2, pp. 725–754, 2021, doi: 10.1007/s11205-020-02563-w.

[50] J. F. Hair, J. J. Risher, M. Sarstedt, and C. M. Ringle, “When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM,” Jan. 14, 2019, Emerald Group Publishing Ltd. doi: 10.1108/EBR-11-2018-0203.

[51] J. F. Hair Jr, M. Sabol, M. S. Islam, and F. Murshed, “Conditional Mediation (CoMe) Models with PLS-SEM: An Update, Review, and Best-Practice Recommendations,” Australasian Marketing Journal, 2024, doi: 10.1177/14413582261420459.

[52] J. F. Hair Jr et al., “An introduction to structural equation modeling,” Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) using R: a workbook, pp. 1–29, 2021, doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-80519-7_1.

[53] Q. Liu, J. D. Pinto, and L. Paquette, “Applications of explainable ai (xai) in education,” in Trust and Inclusion in AI-Mediated Education: Where Human Learning Meets Learning Machines, Springer, 2024, pp. 93–109. doi: 10.1007/978-3-031-64487-0_5.

[54] F. Ibrahim, J.-C. Münscher, M. Daseking, and N.-T. Telle, “The technology acceptance model and adopter type analysis in the context of artificial intelligence,” Front. Artif. Intell., vol. 7, p. 1496518, 2025, doi: 10.3389/frai.2024.1496518.

[55] P. D. König, “Challenges in enabling user control over algorithm-based services,” AI Soc., vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 195–205, 2024, doi: 10.1007/s00146-022-01395-1.

[56] M.-L. Chiu, “Exploring user awareness and perceived usefulness of generative AI in higher education: The moderating role of trust,” Educ. Inf. Technol. (Dordr)., vol. 30, no. 15, pp. 21317–21351, 2025, doi: 10.1007/s10639-025-13612-7.

Downloads

Published

2026-06-22

Issue

Vol. 8 No. 3 (2026): June

Section

Articles

License

Copyright (c) 2026 Journal of Information Systems and Informatics

Creative Commons License

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

Authors Declaration

  1. The Authors certify that they have read, understood, and agreed to the Journal of Information Systems and Informatics (JournalISI) submission guidelines, policies, and submission declaration. The submission has been prepared using the provided template.
  2. The Authors certify that all authors have approved the publication of this manuscript and that there is no conflict of interest.
  3. The Authors confirm that the manuscript is their original work, has not received prior publication, is not under consideration for publication elsewhere, and has not been previously published.
  4. The Authors confirm that all authors listed on the title page have contributed significantly to the work, have read the manuscript, attest to the validity and legitimacy of the data and its interpretation, and agree to its submission.
  5. The Authors confirm that the manuscript is not copied from or plagiarized from any other published work.
  6. The Authors declare that the manuscript will not be submitted for publication in any other journal or magazine until a decision is made by the journal editors.
  7. If the manuscript is finally accepted for publication, the Authors confirm that they will either proceed with publication immediately or withdraw the manuscript in accordance with the journal’s withdrawal policies.
  8. The Authors agree that, upon publication of the manuscript in this journal, they transfer copyright or assign exclusive rights to the publisher, including commercial rights

Most read articles by the same author(s)