Toward Human-Centric AI Education: Integrating Islamic Ethical Values and Western AI Literacy to Foster Responsible AI Engagement among University Students in Thailand

References

1. Abbas, M., Jam, F. A., & Khan, T. I. (2024). Is it harmful or helpful? Examining the causes and consequences of
2. generative AI usage among university students. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher
3. Education, 21(1), 10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-024-00444-7
4. Abror, M., & Hakim, L. (2025). The role of Islamic education in building digital wellbeing and social media ethics
5. among Muslim youth. West Science Islamic Studies, 3(1), 1–12.
6. Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2),
7. 179–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T
8. Ali, F., Hassan, M., & Rahman, S. (2025). Islamic ethics and AI: An evaluation of existing approaches to AI using
9. trusteeship ethics. Philosophy & Technology, 38(2), 34. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-025-00845-0
10. Ali, R. A., Soliman, M., Weahama, M. R., Assalihee, M., & Mahmud, I. (2025). Investigating continuous intention
11. to use metaverse in higher education institutions: A dual-staged structural equation modeling–artificial
12. neural network approach. Smart Learning Environments, 12(1), 3. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-024-
13. 00357-y
14. Alshamy, A., Al-Harthi, A. S., & Abdullah, S. (2025). Perceptions of generative AI tools in higher education:
15. Insights from students and academics at Sultan Qaboos University. Education Sciences, 15(2), 145.
16. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15020145
17. An, X., Chai, C. S., Li, Y., Zhou, Y., & Yang, B. (2023). Modeling students’ perceptions of artificial intelligence
18. assisted language learning. Computer Assisted Language Learning , 36(7), 1–22.
19. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2023.2246519
20. Athoillah, S., Rahman, A., & Fauzi, A. (2023). Religious digital literacy of urban Muslim society in Indonesia: A
21. systematic literature review. Akademika: Jurnal Pemikiran Islam, 28(2), 245–264.
22. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological
23. research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social
24. Psychology, 51(6), 1173–1182. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173
25. Bouteraa, M., Bin-Nashwan, S. A., Al-Daihani, M., Dirie, K. A., Benlahcene, A., Sadallah, M., Zaki, H. O.,
26. Mohamad, A., Ashaari, M. A., Hassan, S. A., & Ramli, M. (2024). Understanding the diffusion of AI-
27. generative (ChatGPT) in higher education: Does students’ integrity matter? Computers in Human Behavior
28. Reports, 14, 100402. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chbr.2024.100402
29. Brislin, R. W. (1970). Back-translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1(3),
30. 185–216. https://doi.org/10.1177/135910457000100301
31. Chee, H., Park, S., & Kim, J. (2024). A competency framework for AI literacy: Variations by different learner
32. groups and an implied learning pathway. British Journal of Educational Technology, 55(6), 2419–2444.
33. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13442
34. Chiu, T. K. F. (2024). What are artificial intelligence literacy and competency? A comprehensive framework to
35. support them. Computers and Education Open, 6, 100171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeo.2024.100171
36. Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology.
37. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008
38. Du, L., Lv, X., & Wang, Y. (2024). Factors influencing students’ acceptance and use of generative artificial
39. intelligence in elementary education: An expansion of the UTAUT model. Education and Information
40. Technologies, 29(18), 24715–24739. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-12835-4
41. Eke, D. O. (2023). ChatGPT and the rise of generative AI: Threat to academic integrity? Journal of Responsible
42. Technology, 13, 100060. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrt.2023.100060
43. Elmahjub, E. (2023). Artificial intelligence (AI) in Islamic ethics: Towards pluralist ethical benchmarking for AI.
44. Philosophy & Technology, 36(4), 73. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-023-00668-x
45. Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A.-G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using GPower 3.1: Tests
46. for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41*(4), 1149–1160.
47. 560 | ICON-IMAD XV Proceedings · Volume IV · 2026
48. International Conference on Islam in the Malay World (ICON-IMAD XV), 2026
49. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149
50. Fiss, P. C. (2011). Building better causal theories: A fuzzy set approach to typologies in organization research.
51. Academy of Management Journal, 54(2), 393–420. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2011.60263120
52. Gorian, E., & Korshunova, O. (2024). Digital ethics of artificial intelligence in Saudi Arabia and United Arab
53. Emirates. Malaysian Journal of Syariah and Law, 12(2), 333–349.
54. Gruenhagen, J. H., Sinclair, P. M., Carroll, J.-A., Baker, P. R. A., Wilson, A., & Demant, D. (2024). The rapid
55. rise of generative AI and its implications for academic integrity: Students’ perceptions and use of chatbots
56. for assistance with assessments. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 7, 100273.
57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2024.100273
58. Hair, J. F., Risher, J. J., Sarstedt, M., & Ringle, C. M. (2019). When to use and how to report the results of PLS-
59. SEM. European Business Review, 31(1), 2–24. https://doi.org/10.1108/EBR-11-2018-0203
60. Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-
61. based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(1), 115–135.
62. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8
63. Hornberger, M., Bewersdorff, A., & Nerdel, C. (2023). What do university students know about artificial
64. intelligence? Development and validation of an AI literacy test. Computers and Education: Artificial
65. Intelligence, 5, 100165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2023.100165
66. Jones, J. (2026). On the measurement of AI literacy among students in higher education: A scoping review.
67. International Journal of AI in Pedagogy, Innovation, and Learning Futures, 1(1), 1–23.
68. Kannike, U. M. M. (2025). Exploring the ethical governance of artificial intelligence from an Islamic ethical
69. perspective. Jurnal Fiqh, 22(1), 1–30.
70. Karan, B. (2025). Influence of higher education students’ perceived behaviour on their artificial intelligence
71. acceptance: An empirical investigation using the technology acceptance model. Journal of Applied
72. Research in Higher Education. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1108/JARHE-05-2024-0234
73. Khalid, J., Mi, C., Soliman, M., Abbasi, G. A., & Ali, A. J. (2025). Augmenting humanity: Industry 5.0 and the
74. rise of human-machine collaboration. Emerald Publishing.
75. Kock, N. (2015). Common method bias in PLS-SEM: A full collinearity assessment approach. International
76. Journal of e-Collaboration, 11(4), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.4018/ijec.2015100101
77. Leong, L.-Y., Hew, T.-S., Ooi, K.-B., & Wei, J. (2020). Predicting mobile wallet resistance: A two-staged
78. structural equation modeling-artificial neural network approach. International Journal of Information
79. Management, 51, 102047. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2019.102047
80. Li, K. (2023). Determinants of college students’ actual use of AI-based systems: An extension of the technology
81. acceptance model. Sustainability, 15(6), 5221. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15065221
82. Liengaard, B. D., Sharma, P. N., Hult, G. T. M., Jensen, M. B., Sarstedt, M., Hair, J. F., & Ringle, C. M. (2021).
83. Prediction: Coveted, yet forsaken? Introducing a cross-validated predictive ability test in partial least
84. squares path modeling. Decision Sciences, 52(2), 362–392. https://doi.org/10.1111/deci.12445
85. Long, D., & Magerko, B. (2020). What is AI literacy? Competencies and design considerations. Proceedings of
86. the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems , 1–16.
87. https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376727
88. Ma, D., Akram, H., & Chen, I.-H. (2024). Artificial intelligence in higher education: A cross-cultural examination
89. of students’ behavioral intentions and attitudes. The International Review of Research in Open and
90. Distributed Learning, 25(3), 134–157. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v25i3.7703
91. Ma, S., & Lei, L. (2024). The factors influencing teacher education students’ willingness to adopt artificial
92. intelligence technology for information-based teaching. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 44(1), 94–111.
93. https://doi.org/10.1080/02188791.2024.2305017
94. Memon, M. A., Ting, H., Cheah, J.-H., Thurasamy, R., Chuah, F., & Cham, T. H. (2020). Sample size for survey
95. research: Review and recommendations. Journal of Applied Structural Equation Modeling, 4(2), i–xx.
96. https://doi.org/10.47263/JASEM.4(2)01
97. Missier, C. A. (2025). A qualitative study of digital religious influence: Perspectives from Christian, Hindu, and
98. Muslim Gen Y and Gen Z in Mumbai, India. Religions, 16(3), 312. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel16030312
99. Mohamed, M. G., Mahmoud, F. H., & Hassan, N. (2025). Generative artificial intelligence acceptance, anxiety,
100. and behavioral intention in the Middle East: A TAM-based structural equation modelling approach. BMC
101. Nursing, 24, 412. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-025-02934-z
102. Ng, D. T. K., Leung, J. K. L., Chu, S. K. W., & Qiao, M. S. (2021). Conceptualizing AI literacy: An exploratory
103. review. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence , 2, 100041.
104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2021.100041
105. O’Dea, X., & Ghori, S. (2024). Factors affecting university students’ generative AI literacy: Evidence and
106. evaluation in the UK and Hong Kong contexts. Policy Futures in Education. Advance online publication.
107. ICON-IMAD XV Proceedings · Volume IV · 2026| 561
108. International Conference on Islam in the Malay World (ICON-IMAD XV), 2026
109. https://doi.org/10.1177/14782103241296298
110. Pappas, I. O., & Woodside, A. G. (2021). Fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA): Guidelines for
111. research practice in information systems and marketing. International Journal of Information Management,
112. 58, 102310. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2021.102310
113. Perkins, M., Roe, J., Postma, D., McGaughran, J., & Hickerson, D. (2023). Detection of GPT-4 generated text in
114. higher education: Combining academic judgement and software to identify generative AI tool misuse.
115. Journal of Academic Ethics, 22, 89–113. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-023-09492-6
116. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral
117. research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology,
118. 88(5), 879–903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
119. Ragin, C. C. (2008). Redesigning social inquiry: Fuzzy sets and beyond. University of Chicago Press.
120. Raquib, A., Channa, B., Zubair, T., & Qadir, J. (2022). Islamic virtue-based ethics for artificial intelligence.
121. Discover Artificial Intelligence, 2(1), 11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44163-022-00028-2
122. Ringle, C. M., Wende, S., & Becker, J.-M. (2024). SmartPLS 4. SmartPLS GmbH. https://www.smartpls.com
123. Sarstedt, M., Hair, J. F., Cheah, J.-H., Becker, J.-M., & Ringle, C. M. (2019). How to specify, estimate, and
124. validate higher-order constructs in PLS-SEM. Australasian Marketing Journal, 27(3), 197–211.
125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ausmj.2019.05.003
126. Schneider, C. Q., & Wagemann, C. (2012). Set-theoretic methods for the social sciences: A guide to qualitative
127. comparative analysis. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139004244
128. Shmueli, G., Sarstedt, M., Hair, J. F., Cheah, J.-H., Ting, H., Vaithilingam, S., & Ringle, C. M. (2019). Predictive
129. model assessment in PLS-SEM: Guidelines for using PLSpredict. European Journal of Marketing, 53(11),
130. 2322–2347. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJM-02-2019-0189
131. Smit, M., Bond-Barnard, T., & Steyn, H. (2025). Ambiguous regulations for dealing with AI in higher education
132. can lead to moral hazards among students. Project Leadership and Society, 6, 100148.
133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plas.2025.100148
134. Soliman, M., Ali, R. A., Khalid, J., Mahmud, I., & Ali, W. B. (2025). Modelling continuous intention to use
135. generative artificial intelligence as an educational tool among university students: Findings from PLS-SEM
136. and ANN. Journal of Computers in Education, 12(1), 897–928. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40692-024-00333-
137. y
138. Soliman, M., Ali, R. A., Khalid, J., Mahmud, I., & Assalihee, M. (2023). Modeling the continuous intention to
139. use the metaverse as a learning platform: PLS-SEM and fsQCA approach. In M. A. Al-Sharafi, M. Al-
140. Emran, G. W.-H. Tan, & K.-B. Ooi (Eds.), Current and future trends on intelligent technology adoption
141. (Studies in Computational Intelligence, Vol. 1128, pp. 41–62). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-
142. 48397-4_3
143. Soliman, M., Ali, R. A., & Noipom, T. (2025). Unlocking AI-powered tools adoption among university students:
144. A fuzzy-set approach. Journal of Information and Communication Technology, 24(1), 1–28.
145. https://doi.org/10.32890/jict2025.24.1.1
146. Soliman, M., Ali Abdelwahed, R. A., Mahmud, I., Hayeemad, M., & Khalid, J. (2025). Ethical and societal
147. considerations of AI in business. In J. Khalid, C. Mi, M. Soliman, G. A. Abbasi, & A. J. Ali (Eds.),
148. Augmenting humanity: Industry 5.0 and the rise of human-machine collaboration. Emerald Publishing.
149. Soliman, M., Assalihee, M., Weahama, M. R., & Ali, R. A. (2024). Predicting continuous intention to use e-
150. learning platforms among university students: An integrated model. International Journal of Information
151. and Education Technology, 14(12). https://doi.org/10.18178/ijiet.2024.14.12.2203
152. Stolpe, K., & Hallström, J. (2024). Artificial intelligence literacy for technology education. Computers and
153. Education Open, 6, 100159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeo.2024.100159
154. Strzelecki, A. (2023). To use or not to use ChatGPT in higher education? A study of students’ acceptance and use
155. of technology. Interactive Learning Environments , 32(9), 5142–5155.
156. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2023.2209881
157. Sullivan, M., Kelly, A., & McLaughlin, P. (2023). ChatGPT in higher education: Considerations for academic
158. integrity and student learning. Journal of Applied Learning & Teaching, 6(1), 31–40.
159. https://doi.org/10.37074/jalt.2023.6.1.17
160. Wang, K., Sun, B., & Li, Y. (2025). Artificial intelligence in higher education: The impact of need satisfaction on
161. artificial intelligence literacy mediated by self-regulated learning strategies. Behavioral Sciences, 15(1), 64.
162. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs15010064
163. Wang, W., Zhang, Y., & Chen, X. (2025). College students’ behavioural intentions of AI-assisted language
164. learning: Based on the technology acceptance model. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 41(2),
165. e13098. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.13098
166. Waseem, U., & Ahmad, S. (2025). Islamic ethical perspectives on AI and digital transformation in the 21st
167. 562 | ICON-IMAD XV Proceedings · Volume IV · 2026
168. International Conference on Islam in the Malay World (ICON-IMAD XV), 2026
169. century. Wah Academia Journal of Global Religions, 3(1), 45–68.
170. Wiredu, J., Abdul-Rahaman, N., & Mensah, A. (2024). Impact of generative AI in academic integrity and learning
171. outcomes: A case study in the Upper East Region. Asian Journal of Research in Computer Science, 17(6),
172. 217–231. https://doi.org/10.9734/ajrcos/2024/v17i6471
173. Zaid, B., Fedtke, J., Shin, D. D., El Kadoussi, A., & Ibahrine, M. (2022). Digital Islam and Muslim millennials:
174. How social media influencers reimagine religious authority and Islamic practices. Religions, 13(4), 335.
175. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel13040335
176. Appendix: Questionnaire Items
177. All items were measured on a seven-point Likert scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).
178. Construct (source) Code Item
179. Islamic Ethical Awareness
180. (Raquib et al., 2022; Abror &
181. Hakim, 2025)
182. IEA1 I consider whether using an AI tool
183. is consistent with Islamic
184. ethical principles before
185. relying on it.
186. IEA2 I believe that knowledge gained
187. through AI carries a moral
188. trust (amanah) to use it
189. honestly.
190. IEA3 Fairness and justice (’adl) guide
191. how I think AI should be
192. used in my studies.
193. IEA4 I avoid uses of AI that could harm
194. others or spread falsehood.
195. IEA5 Protecting my intellect and
196. integrity (hifz al-’aql)
197. matters more to me than the
198. convenience AI offers.
199. AI Knowledge Competency
200. (Chiu, 2024; Hornberger et
201. al., 2023)
202. AIC1 I understand the basic principles of
203. how AI systems generate
204. their outputs.
205. AIC2 I can recognise the limitations and
206. possible errors of AI tools.
207. AIC3 I am able to evaluate whether an
208. AI-generated answer is
209. accurate.
210. AIC4 I understand how bias can arise in
211. AI systems.
212. AIC5 I can use AI tools effectively for
213. academic tasks.
214. Perceived Usefulness of AI
215. (Davis, 1989; Li, 2023)
216. PU1 Using AI tools improves my
217. academic performance.
218. PU2 AI tools help me complete
219. academic tasks more quickly.
220. PU3 AI tools are useful for my learning.
221. PU4 Using AI enhances the quality of
222. my work.
223. Digital Religious Literacy
224. (Athoillah et al., 2023; Zaid
225. et al., 2022)
226. DRL1 I can find reliable religious
227. knowledge using digital
228. sources.
229. DRL2 I can judge whether online
230. religious content is authentic
231. and trustworthy.
232. DRL3 I apply my faith values when
233. evaluating digital
234. information.
235. ICON-IMAD XV Proceedings · Volume IV · 2026| 563
236. International Conference on Islam in the Malay World (ICON-IMAD XV), 2026
237. DRL4 I am able to identify religious
238. misinformation online.
239. DRL5 I use digital tools in ways
240. consistent with my religious
241. values.
242. Responsible AI Attitude (Ajzen,
243. 1991)
244. RAA1 Using AI responsibly and ethically
245. is important to me.
246. RAA2 I believe AI should be used in ways
247. that respect honesty and
248. integrity.
249. RAA3 A responsible attitude should guide
250. every use of AI in education.
251. RAA4 I value keeping human judgement
252. central when using AI.
253. RAA5 Being accountable for how I use AI
254. is something I care about.
255. Educational Institutional
256. Support (Du et al., 2024)
257. EIS1 My university provides clear
258. guidelines for the ethical use
259. of AI.
260. EIS2 My university offers training and
261. resources on responsible AI
262. use.
263. EIS3 My instructors support the
264. responsible use of AI in
265. coursework.
266. EIS4 My university has policies that
267. encourage ethical AI use.
268. Intention to Use Ethical AI
269. (Ajzen, 1991; Davis, 1989)
270. INT1 I intend to use AI tools ethically in
271. my studies.
272. INT2 I will follow responsible practices
273. whenever I use AI.
274. INT3 I plan to use AI in ways consistent
275. with academic integrity.
276. INT4 I intend to avoid misusing AI for
277. academic work.
278. 564 | ICON-IMAD XV Proceedings · Volume IV · 2026
279. International Conference on Islam in the Malay World (ICON-IMAD XV), 2026
280. This page has been intentionally left blank