MODEL ADOPSI GEMINI AI PADA MAHASISWA PERGURUAN TINGGI: ANALISIS BERBASIS VALUE-BASED ADOPTION MODEL DAN TECHNOLOGY ACCEPTANCE MODEL

Melisa Dwi Adinda Sukmawati; Grandys Frieska Prassida

doi:10.30656/qp49wv97

Authors

Melisa Dwi Adinda Sukmawati Universitas Internasioanal Semen Indonesia
Grandys Frieska Prassida Universitas Internasional Semen Indonesia https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2673-8145

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.30656/qp49wv97

Abstract

Peningkatan pemanfaatan kecerdasan buatan (Artificial Intelligence/AI), khususnya Gemini AI, dalam kegiatan akademik mahasiswa mendorong perlunya pemahaman terhadap faktor-faktor yang memengaruhi niat adopsinya di lingkungan pendidikan tinggi. Meskipun penggunaan AI generatif semakin berkembang, penelitian yang mengkaji penerimaannya pada platform tertentu serta mengintegrasikan kerangka Value-Based Adoption Model (VAM) dan Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) masih terbatas. Dengan demikian, tujuan dari penelitian ini untuk mengkaj pengaruh perceived benefit dan perceived sacrifice terhadap perceived value, serta peran perceived value dalam membentuk attitude dan adoption intention mahasiswa terhadap penggunaan Gemini AI, melalui integrasi VAM dan TAM. Pendekatan yang digunakan dalam penelitian ini adalah kuantitatif berbasis metode survei, mencakup 246 responden mahasiswa perguruan tinggi di Jawa Timur yang memiliki pengalaman menggunakan Gemini AI dalam kegiatan akademik. Data dikumpulkan menggunakan kuesioner berbasis Google Forms dan selanjutnya dianalisis menggunakan SEM-PLS. Berdasarkan dari hasil penelitian, perceived benefit berpengaruh positif dan signifikan terhadap perceived value, sedangkan perceived sacrifice berpengaruh negatif dan signifikan terhadap perceived value. Selanjutnya, perceived value terbukti berpengaruh positif dan signifikan terhadap attitude dan adoption intention, serta attitude juga berpengaruh positif terhadap niat adopsi Gemini AI. Integrasi VAM dan TAM yang terdapat pada penelitian ini menunjukkan kemampuan prediktif model yang kuat, di mana variabel perceived value dan attitude mampu menjelaskan 63,5% variasi niat adopsi Gemini AI dengan nilai R² sebesar 0,635. Hasil penelitian menegaskan bahwa nilai yang dirasakan merupakan faktor utama dalam proses adopsi Gemini AI, yang terbentuk dari evaluasi manfaat dan risiko yang dirasakan mahasiswa. Secara keseluruhan, penelitian ini mengonfirmasi bahwa integrasi VAM dan TAM mampu menjelaskan proses adopsi teknologi AI generatif secara komprehensif dalam konteks pendidikan tinggi. Penelitian ini juga memberikan kontribusi teoretis melalui penguatan integrasi VAM dan TAM serta memperkaya kajian adopsi AI generatif di lingkungan pendidikan tinggi.

Kata Kunci: Artificial Intelligence, Gemini, Technology Acceptance Model, Value-Based Adoption Model, SEM-PLS

Author Biographies

Melisa Dwi Adinda Sukmawati, Universitas Internasioanal Semen Indonesia

Departemen Sistem Informasi
Grandys Frieska Prassida, Universitas Internasional Semen Indonesia

Departemen Sistem Informasi

References

[1] A. S. Nagy, J. R. Tumiwa, F. V. Arie, and L. Erdey, “An exploratory study of artificial intelligence adoption in higher education,” Cogent Educ., vol. 11, no. 1, p., 2024, doi: 10.1080/2331186X.2024.2386892.

[2] P. A. Rachmatika, E. Wahyudinarti, and R. N. Ain, “Tinggi Surabaya Terhadap Google Gemini Ai,” JITET (Jurnal Inform. dan Tek. Elektro Ter., vol. 13, no. 3, 2025.

[3] N. Rane, S. Choudhary, and J. Rane, “Gemini versus ChatGPT: applications, performance, architecture, capabilities, and implementation,” J. Appl. Artif. Intell., vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 69–93, 2024, doi: 10.48185/jaai.v5i1.1052.

[4] K. Azmi and R. Fithriani, “Students’ Perceptions of Gemini Ai Effectiveness in Academic Writing,” IDEAS J. English Lang. Teach. Learn. Linguist. Lit., vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 74–93, 2025, doi: 10.24256/ideas.v13i1.6278.

[5] H. Achmadi, K. S. Suk, and D. O. K. Kui, “Advances in Consumer Research From Literacy to Intention : The Mediating Role of Perceived Usefulness in,” Adv. Consum. Res., vol. 2, no. 5, pp. 1601–1611, 2025.

[6] K. Sohn and O. Kwon, “Technology acceptance theories and factors influencing artificial Intelligence-based intelligent products,” Telemat. Informatics, vol. 47, p. 101324, 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.tele.2019.101324.

[7] Wisnu Mu’amar, Andri Firmansyah Caniago, Fadil Tazakka Pribadi, Arifah Budi Hidayah, and Ito Setiawan, “Analisis Penerimaan Teknologi Artificial Intelligence dalam Penyelesaian Tugas Mahasiswa Menggunakan Model Tam,” J. Tek. Inform. dan Teknol. Inf., vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 412–426, 2025, doi: 10.55606/jutiti.v5i1.5203.

[8] Ö. F. Ursavaş, Y. Yalçın, H. İslamoğlu, E. Bakır-Yalçın, and M. Cukurova, “Rethinking the importance of social norms in generative AI adoption: investigating the acceptance and use of generative AI among higher education students,” Int. J. Educ. Technol. High. Educ., vol. 22, no. 1, 2025, doi: 10.1186/s41239-025-00535-z.

[9] E. Rruplli, M. Frydenberg, A. Patterson, and K. Mentzer, “Examining factors of student AI adoption through the value-based adoption model,” Issues Inf. Syst., vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 218–230, 2024, doi: 10.48009/3_iis_2024_117.

[10] J. F. Hair, J. J. Risher, M. Sarstedt, and C. M. Ringle, “The Results of PLS-SEM Article information,” Eur. Bus. Rev., vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 2–24, 2019.

[11] S. R. Wicaksono, Teori Dasar MODEL ACCEPTANCE TECHNOLOGY. 2022.

[12] H. W. Kim, H. C. Chan, and S. Gupta, “Value-based Adoption of Mobile Internet: An empirical investigation,” Decis. Support Syst., vol. 43, no. 1, pp. 111–126, 2007, doi: 10.1016/j.dss.2005.05.009.

[13] A. Mahmud, A. H. Sarower, A. Sohel, M. Assaduzzaman, and T. Bhuiyan, “Adoption of ChatGPT by university students for academic purposes: Partial least square, artificial neural network, deep neural network and classification algorithms approach,” Array, vol. 21, no. March, p. 100339, 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.array.2024.100339.

[14] S. Ivanov, M. Soliman, A. Tuomi, N. A. Alkathiri, and A. N. Al-Alawi, “Drivers of generative AI adoption in higher education through the lens of the Theory of Planned Behaviour,” Technol. Soc., vol. 77, no. December 2023, p. 102521, 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.techsoc.2024.102521.

[15] K. P. Gupta, “Investigating the adoption of MOOCs in a developing country: Application of technology-user-environment framework and self-determination theory,” Interact. Technol. Smart Educ., vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 355–375, 2020, doi: 10.1108/ITSE-06-2019-0033.

[16] A. A. Abdalla, M. A. Bhat, C. K. Tiwari, S. T. Khan, and A. D. Wedajo, “Exploring ChatGPT adoption among business and management students through the lens of diffusion of Innovation Theory,” Comput. Educ. Artif. Intell., vol. 7, no. June, p. 100257, 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.caeai.2024.100257.

[17] S. Lee, S. Suh, and J. S. Chun, “A Society that Encourages AI: The Impact of Social Influence Factors on the Adoption of Generative AI Based on Cognitive Appraisal Theory,” Asian Commun. Res., vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 49–70, 2025, doi: 10.20879/acr.2025.22.002.

[18] F. Nyimbili and L. Nyimbili, “Types of Purposive Sampling Techniques with Their Examples and Application in Qualitative Research Studies,” Br. J. Multidiscip. Adv. Stud., vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 90–99, 2024, doi: 10.37745/bjmas.2022.0419.

[19] J. F. Hair, G. T. M. Hult, and C. M. Ringle, A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling ( PLS-SEM ). 2017.

[20] Putu Gede Subhaktiyasa, “PLS-SEM for Multivariate Analysis: A Practical Guide to Educational Research using SmartPLS,” EduLine J. Educ. Learn. Innov., vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 353–365, 2024, doi: 10.35877/454ri.eduline2861.

[21] S. Nurhalizah, G. Kholijah, and U. Jambi, “Analisis Structural Equation Modeling Partial Least Square pada,” vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 125–135, 2023.

[22] J. F. Hair, M. Sarstedt, T. M. Pieper, and C. M. Ringle, “The Use of Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling in Strategic Management Research: A Review of Past Practices and Recommendations for Future Applications,” Long Range Plann., vol. 45, no. 5–6, pp. 320–340, 2012, doi: 10.1016/j.lrp.2012.09.008.

[23] Z. Mohamed, N. Ubaidullah, and S. Yusof, “An Evaluation of Structural Model for Independent Learning Through Connectivism Theory and Web 2.0 Towards Studentsr Achievement,” vol. 175, no. ICASE, pp. 1–5, 2018, doi: 10.2991/icase-18.2018.1.

[24] D. Saepuzaman, E. Istiyono, and Widihastuti, “Validity and Reliability of Students’ Attitude Scale Instrument Construction to Physics with Confirmation Factor Analisys,” J. Ris. Pendidik. Fis., vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 55–65, 2021.

[25] Hair and M. S. F, JG. Tomas M. Hult, Christian M. Ringle, A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM). 2017.

[26] K. S. Taber, “The Use of Cronbach’s Alpha When Developing and Reporting Research Instruments in Science Education,” Res. Sci. Educ., vol. 48, no. 6, pp. 1273–1296, 2018, doi: 10.1007/s11165-016-9602-2.

[27] C. Fornell and D. F. Larcker, “Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables,” J. Mark. Res., vol. XVIII, no. February, pp. 39–50, 1981.

[28] J. H. C. M. R. M. Sarstedt, “Testing Measurement Invariance of Composites Using Partial Least Squares,” 2016.

[29] C. L. Hsu and J. C. C. Lin, “Exploring factors affecting the adoption of internet of things services,” J. Comput. Inf. Syst., vol. 58, no. 1, pp. 49–57, 2018, doi: 10.1080/08874417.2016.1186524.