Hubungan Kualitas Pemanfaatan ChatGPT dengan Persepsi Pemahaman Pendidikan Agama Islam Siswa Kelas XI SMK Negeri 3 Tanjungpinang
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.64405/q1fxgf84Keywords:
ChatGPT, AI Literacy, Self-Reported IRE Understanding, Correlation, Vocational StudentsAbstract
The use of ChatGPT in Islamic Religious Education (IRE) is not limited to access frequency; it also involves students' ability to operate the application, critically evaluate its responses, and verify religious information. This study examines the association between students' self-reported quality of ChatGPT use and their self-reported understanding of IRE. A cross-sectional quantitative correlational design was employed. All 57 Grade XI Electrical Power Installation Engineering students at SMK Negeri 3 Tanjungpinang were included through total sampling. Data were collected through observation, Likert-scale questionnaires, and documentation. After item analysis, the ChatGPT-use instrument contained 13 items (alpha = 0.877), while the self-reported IRE-understanding instrument contained 10 items (alpha = 0.700). Descriptive scores were 81% for the quality of ChatGPT use and 83% for self-reported IRE understanding. Pearson correlation yielded r = 0.629, p < 0.001, with a 95% confidence interval of 0.441-0.764. The two scores shared 39.6% of their variance. The finding indicates a positive association rather than a causal effect. Because both variables were measured by self-report at the same time, the result may be affected by common-method bias and cannot be treated as evidence of objective IRE mastery. The study's contribution is to frame ChatGPT use in IRE as responsible AI literacy that requires source verification and teacher guidance.
References
Almunadi, M., & Zulfatmi. (2024). Analisis jawaban Artificial Intelligence ChatGPT OpenAI pada materi Pendidikan Agama Islam kelas X SMA. Educator Development Journal, 2(2), 44-67. https://doi.org/10.22373/edj.v2i2.2479
Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (Eds.). (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives. Longman.
Celot, P., & Perez Tornero, J. M. (Eds.). (2009). Study on assessment criteria for media literacy levels: A comprehensive view of the concept of media literacy and an understanding of how media literacy level in Europe should be assessed. European Commission.
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2018). Research methods in education (8th ed.). Routledge.
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). Sage.
Darmu'in, D., Nasikhin, Darnoto, Sofanudin, A., Maarif, M. A., & Haryanto, J. T. (2025). Perceived barriers to ChatGPT integration in Islamic studies education: Insights from Malaysian international students in Indonesia. Journal of International Students, 15(11), 141-164. https://doi.org/10.32674/h99a4p06
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
Field, A. (2018). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS Statistics (5th ed.). Sage.
Iswanto, J., Afdal, T., & Mayasari, E. (2026). Persepsi mahasiswa terhadap penggunaan Artificial Intelligence (AI) dalam English Academic Writing. Jurnal Miftahul Ulum, 4(1), 74-91. https://doi.org/10.64405/a7rmh918
Kasneci, E., Sessler, K., Kuchemann, S., Bannert, M., Dementieva, D., Fischer, F., Gasser, U., Groh, G., Gunnemann, S., Hullermeier, E., Krusche, S., Kutyniok, G., Michaeli, T., Nerdel, C., Pfeffer, J., Poquet, O., Sailer, M., Schmidt, A., Seidel, T., Stadler, M., Weller, J., Kuhn, J., & Kasneci, G. (2023). ChatGPT for good? On opportunities and challenges of large language models for education. Learning and Individual Differences, 103, 102274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2023.102274
Lee, V. R., Pope, D., Miles, S., & Zarate, R. C. (2024). Cheating in the age of generative AI: A high school survey study of cheating behaviors before and after the release of ChatGPT. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 7, 100253. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2024.100253
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
Mulya, B. D. P., Nasikhin, Fihris, & Junaedi, M. (2025). Islamic Religious Education learning process through the utilization of ChatGPT. JIE (Journal of Islamic Education), 10(1), 36-54. https://doi.org/10.52615/jie.v10i1.554
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879-903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
Tlili, A., Shehata, B., Adarkwah, M. A., Bozkurt, A., Hickey, D. T., Huang, R., & Agyemang, B. (2023). What if the devil is my guardian angel: ChatGPT as a case study of using chatbots in education. Smart Learning Environments, 10, 15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-023-00237-x
UNESCO. (2023). Guidance for generative AI in education and research. UNESCO.
Yim, I. H. Y., & Su, J. (2025). Artificial intelligence (AI) learning tools in K-12 education: A scoping review. Journal of Computers in Education, 12, 93-131. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40692-023-00304-9
Zhong, B., & Liu, X. (2025). Evaluating AI literacy of secondary students: Framework and scale development. Computers & Education, 227, 105230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2024.105230
