Student Awareness of Information Ethics in the Use of Artificial Intelligence for Academic Writing Based on the PAPA Framework

Alya Rasyifa; Franindya Purwaningtyas

doi:10.55537/bigint.v4i2.1879

Authors

Alya Rasyifa Universitas Islam Negeri Sumatera Utara
Franindya Purwaningtyas Universitas Islam Negeri Sumatera Utara

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.55537/bigint.v4i2.1879

Keywords:

Information ethics, Artificial intelligence, Scientific writing, PAPA framework

Abstract

The rapid development of Artificial Intelligence (AI) has provided new opportunities for students in academic activities and scientific writing while raising ethical concerns related to privacy, information accuracy, ownership, and accessibility. This study aimed to describe students’ self-reported awareness and perceptions of Information Ethics in using AI for scientific writing based on Mason’s Privacy, Accuracy, Property, and Accessibility (PAPA) framework. This study employed a quantitative descriptive approach. Data were collected through a closed-ended questionnaire from 100 Universitas Sumatera Utara students selected using purposive sampling. The instrument consisted of 18 Information Ethics items based on the PAPA dimensions and 14 supporting items related to scientific writing, covering aspects of the Theory of Planned Behavior and Information Literacy. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, Corrected Item-Total Correlation, and Cronbach’s Alpha. The results showed that the overall mean score of Information Ethics was 3.9689, indicating a high category. Privacy obtained the highest mean score (4.0400), followed by Accuracy (3.9760), Property (3.9500), and Accessibility (3.8900). The supporting constructs also showed relatively high descriptive results. These findings reflect respondents’ self-reported awareness and perceptions rather than direct evidence of actual ethical behavior. The findings provide contextual input for strengthening information literacy and responsible AI-use guidelines in higher education.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

O. P. Barus, A. N. Hidayanto, E. Y. Handri, D. I. Sensuse, and C. Yaiprasert, “Shaping generative AI governance in higher education: Insights from student perception,” Int. J. Educ. Res. Open, vol. 8, no. January, p. 100452, 2025, doi: 10.1016/j.ijedro.2025.100452.

E. Kasneci et al., “ChatGPT for good? On opportunities and challenges of large language models for education,” Learn. Individ. Differ., vol. 103, pp. 1–13, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.lindif.2023.102274.

M. Nurtanto et al., “Determinants of behavioral intentions and their impact on student performance in the use of AI technology in higher education in Indonesia: A SEM-PLS analysis based on TPB, UTAUT, and TAM frameworks,” Soc. Sci. Humanit. Open, vol. 11, no. June, p. 101638, 2025, doi: 10.1016/j.ssaho.2025.101638.

A. Dabis and C. Csáki, “AI and ethics: Investigating the first policy responses of higher education institutions to the challenge of generative AI,” Humanit. Soc. Sci. Commun., vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 1–13, 2024, doi: 10.1057/s41599-024-03526-z.

A. Nguyen, H. N. Ngo, Y. Hong, B. Dang, and B.-P. T. Nguyen, “Ethical principles for artificial intelligence in education,” Educ. Inf. Technol., vol. 28, no. 4, pp. 4221–4241, 2023 doi: 10.1007/s10639-022-11316-w.

M. Farinosi and C. Melchior, “To adopt or to ban? Student perceptions and use of generative AI in higher education,” Humanit. Soc. Sci. Commun., vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 1–14, 2025 doi: 10.1057/s41599-025-05982-7.

M. Salvagno, F. S. Taccone, and A. G. Gerli, “Can artificial intelligence help for scientific writing?,” Crit. Care, vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 1–5, 2023, doi: 10.1186/s13054-023-04380-2.

M. M. Marchese and A. Marchese, “Survey on Undergraduate Student Use of Generative AI: Implications for Information Literacy in Academic Libraries,” Coll. Res. Libr., vol. 87, no. 2, pp. 216–245, 2026 doi: 10.5860/crl.87.2.216.

W. Yan, T. Nakajima, and R. Sawada, “Beyond tool use: Tracking the evolution of generative AI literacy among university students through a process-oriented investigation,” Comput. Educ. Artif. Intell., vol. 9, no. August, p. 100465, 2025, doi: 10.1016/j.caeai.2025.100465.

J. H. Gruenhagen, P. M. Sinclair, J. A. Carroll, P. R. A. Baker, A. Wilson, and D. Demant, “The rapid rise of generative AI and its implications for academic integrity: Students’ perceptions and use of chatbots for assistance with assessments,” Comput. Educ. Artif. Intell., vol. 7, no. November 2023, p. 100273, 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.caeai.2024.100273.

D. Huang, N. Hash, J. J. Cummings, and K. Prena, “Academic cheating with generative AI: Exploring a moral extension of the theory of planned behavior,” Comput. Educ. Artif. Intell., vol. 8, no. May, p. 100424, 2025, doi: 10.1016/j.caeai.2025.100424.

B. Lund et al., “Student Perceptions of AI-Assisted Writing and Academic Integrity: Ethical Concerns, Academic Misconduct, and Use of Generative AI in Higher Education,” AI Educ., vol. 1, no. 1, p. 2, 2025, doi: 10.3390/aieduc1010002.

R. O. Mason, C. P. Collins, and E. L. Cox, “Four Ethical Issues of the Information Age,” Manag. Inf. Syst. Q., vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 5–12, Mar. 1986, doi: 10.2307/248873.

J. A. Young, T. J. Smith, and S. H. Zheng, “Call Me BIG PAPA: An Extension of Mason’s Information Ethics Framework to Big Data,” J. Midwest Assoc. Inf. Syst., vol. 2020, no. 2, pp. 17–41, 2020, doi: 10.17705/3jmwa.000059.

B. G. Acosta-Enriquez et al., “Knowledge, attitudes, and perceived Ethics regarding the use of ChatGPT among generation Z university students,” Int. J. Educ. Integr., vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 1–23, 2024, doi: 10.1007/s40979-024-00157-4.

W. Zhu et al., “Could AI Ethical Anxiety, Perceived Ethical Risks and Ethical Awareness About AI Influence University Students’ Use of Generative AI Products? An Ethical Perspective,” Int. J. Human–Computer Interact., vol. 41, no. 1, pp. 742–764, Jan. 2025, doi: 10.1080/10447318.2024.2323277.

[T. Yang, J. Cheon, M. H. Cho, M. Huang, and N. Cusson, “Undergraduate students’ perspectives of generative AI ethics,” Int. J. Educ. Technol. High. Educ., vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 1–22, 2025, doi: 10.1186/s41239-025-00533-1.

J. Yang, W. Xie, and J. Ni, “A framework for AI ethics literacy: development, validation, and its role in fostering students’ self-rated learning competence,” Sci. Rep., vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 1–14, 2025, doi: 10.1038/s41598-025-21977-5.

J. Kim, S. Yu, R. Detrick, and N. Li, Exploring students’ perspectives on Generative AI-assisted academic writing, vol. 30, no. 1. 2025, doi: 10.1007/s10639-024-12878-7.

I. Ajzen, “The theory of planned behavior,” Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process., vol. 50, no. 2, pp. 179–211, 1991, doi: 10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T.