Breaking the “Non-Exact Sciences” Myth: Disciplinary Sensitivity and AI Ethical Awareness Among Pre-Service Language Teachers

Al Ashadi Alimin, Hastiani Hastiani, Augusto Da Costa, Simão Lopes Cardoso

Abstract


The rapid integration of Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) in higher education has sparked global concerns regarding academic integrity and regulation. However, existing literature often generalizes student perceptions through a binary STEM versus non-STEM lens, obscuring crucial intradisciplinary variations. This study investigated the disparities in ethical awareness and regulatory demands regarding GenAI among university students, specifically challenging the monolithic categorization of Non-Exact Sciences. Employing a quantitative cross-sectional survey, data from 721 Indonesian undergraduates were collected using a 25-item Likert-scale questionnaire, validated via Pearson correlation with high reliability (Cronbach’s α = 0.957). Statistical analysis using the Kruskal-Wallis H test revealed a significant divergence from traditional assumptions. While macro-analysis confirmed Exact Science students generally exhibit higher ethical awareness, granular post-hoc analysis uncovered Language Education students represent a positive anomaly. These findings empirically operationalize the concept of 'epistemological proximity,' the degree to which GenAI intersects with a discipline's core ontology, such as text production in language studies. As a measurable predictor of AI ethical awareness, students in text-centric disciplines (Language Education) demonstrated significantly higher ethical (Mean Rank = 419.64) and regulatory demand scores (Mean Rank = 403.17) compared to other Non-Exact Sciences (p < .001), rendering their profiles statistically indistinguishable from Exact Sciences. Thus, epistemological proximity is a stronger and more operational predictor of ethical awareness than broad binary disciplinary labels. The study concludes that the non-exact sciences  category is no longer relevant for AI adoption studies and recommending policymakers develop discipline-sensitive AI literacy programs addressing the specific regulatory vacuums.

Keywords


Artificial Intelligence; Disciplinary Sensitivity; Epistemological Proximity; AI Ethics; Pre-service Language Teachers.

Full Text:

DOWNLOAD [PDF]

References


Alghamdi, A. A. (2025). University students’ perceptions of generative AI for critical thinking and creativity: The influence of self-efficacy and disciplinary differences. Innovations in Education and Teaching International. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2025.2600476

Azzahra, F., & Kembaren, F. R. W. (2025). Gamified Learning in EFL Classrooms: Students’ Perceptions of Baamboozle Games for Vocabulary Mastery. IJECA (International Journal of Education and Curriculum Application), 8(2), 177–192. https://doi.org/10.31764/ijeca.v8i2.32640

Castillo-Cuesta, L. (2025). Pre-service teachers’ perceptions of the use of artificial intelligence in an English as a foreign language learning context. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 24(10), 818–841. https://doi.org/10.26803/ijlter.24.10.39

Cengiz, S., & Peker, A. (2025). Generative artificial intelligence acceptance and artificial intelligence anxiety among university students: the sequential mediating role of attitudes toward artificial intelligence and literacy. Current Psychology, 44(9), 7991–8000. https://doi.org/10.1007/S12144-025-07433-7

Cheung, G. W., Cooper-Thomas, H. D., Lau, R. S., & Wang, L. C. (2024). Reporting reliability, convergent and discriminant validity with structural equation modeling: A review and best-practice recommendations. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 41(2), 745–783. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10490-023-09871-y

Cong-Lem, N., Tran, T. N., & Nguyen, T. T. (2024). Academic integrity in the age of generative AI: Perceptions and responses of Vietnamese EFL teachers. Teaching English with Technology, 24(1), 28–47. https://doi.org/10.56297/FSYB3031/MXNB7567

Deep, P. D., Edgington, W. D., Ghosh, N., & Rahaman, M. S. (2025). Evaluating the Effectiveness and Ethical Implications of AI Detection Tools in Higher Education. Information, 16(10), 905. https://doi.org/10.3390/info16100905

Den Hollander, N., Struyf, A., Georgiou, D., & Wong, J. (2026). From perception to policy: Course coordinators’ views on generative artificial intelligence in higher education. International Journal of Educational Management, 40(1–2), 240–255. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-12-2024-0842

Derakhshan, A., & Ghiasvand, F. (2024). Is ChatGPT an evil or an angel for second language education and research? A phenomenographic study of research-active EFL teachers’ perceptions. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 34(4), 1246–1264. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijal.12561

Eddine, R. J., Gide, E., & Al-Sabbagh, A. (2025). Generative AI in higher education: A cross-sector analysis of ChatGPT’s impact on STEM, social sciences, and healthcare. STEM Education, 5(5), 757–801. https://doi.org/10.3934/steme.2025035

Fiandini, M., & al., et. (2024). How to Calculate Statistics for Significant Difference Test Using SPSS: Understanding Students Comprehension on the Concept of Steam Engines as Power Plant. Indonesian Journal of Science and Technology, 9(1), 45–108. https://doi.org/10.17509/ijost.v9i1.64035

Jaya, F. (2024). Digital Literacy, Pedagogical Insight, and Self-Belief: An Exploration of Pre-Service Teacher Z-Generation. IJECA (International Journal of Education and Curriculum Application), 7(2), 162–174. https://doi.org/10.31764/ijeca.v7i2.20798

Kalkbrenner, M. T. (2024). Choosing Between Cronbach’s Coefficient Alpha, McDonald’s Coefficient Omega, and Coefficient H: Confidence Intervals and the Advantages and Drawbacks of Interpretive Guidelines. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 57(2), 93–105. https://doi.org/10.1080/07481756.2023.2283637

Karaduman, C. (2025). Pre-service EFL teachers’ perceived AI literacy and competency: The integration of ChatGPT into English language teacher education. SAGE Open, 15(3). https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440251379712

Khasawneh, M. A. S. (2024). Academic integrity and the use of ChatGPT by EFL pre-service teachers. Journal of Infrastructure Policy and Development, 8(7), 4783. https://doi.org/10.24294/jipd.v8i7.4783

Khlaif, Z. N., Alkouk, W. A., Salama, N., & Abu Eideh, B. (2025). Redesigning Assessments for AI-Enhanced Learning: A Framework for Educators in the Generative AI Era. Education Sciences, 15(2), 174. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15020174

Kubullek, A. K., Kumaç, N., & Dogangün, A. (2024). Understanding the adoption of ChatGPT in higher education: A comparative study with insights from STEM and business students. In Proceedings of Mensch und Computer 2024 (pp. 684–689). https://doi.org/10.1145/3670653.3677507

Lee, S., Jeon, J., & Choe, H. (2025). Generative AI (GenAI) and pre-service teacher agency in ELT. ELT Journal, 79(2), 287–296. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccaf005

Li, B., Lowell, V. L., Wang, C., & Li, X. (2024). A systematic review of the first year of publications on ChatGPT and language education: Examining research on ChatGPT’s use in language learning and teaching. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 7, 100266. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2024.100266

Moore, S., & Lookadoo, K. (2024). Communicating clear guidance: Advice for generative AI policy development in higher education. Business and Professional Communication Quarterly, 87(4), 610–629. https://doi.org/10.1177/23294906241254786

Moorhouse, B. L., Wan, Y., Wu, C., Kohnke, L., Ho, T. Y., & Kwong, T. (2024). Developing language teachers’ professional generative AI competence: An intervention study in an initial language teacher education course. System, 125, Article 103399. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2024.103399

Neumann, R. (2001). Disciplinary Differences and University Teaching. Studies in Higher Education, 26(2), 135–146. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070120052071

North, S. (2005). Different values, different skills? A comparison of essay writing by students from arts and science backgrounds. Studies in Higher Education, 30(5), 517–533. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070500249153

Pike, R. K., Buck, L. A., Tsoukkas, E., & Bell, E. (2025). From collaboration to contract cheating: exploring staff and student perceptions of the grey areas of academic outsourcing. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 50(8), 1360–1380. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2025.2539291

Qu, Y. (2024). Disciplinary differences in undergraduate students’ engagement with generative artificial intelligence. Smart Learning Environments, 11(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-024-00341-6

Saihi, A., Ben-Daya, M., & Hariga, M. (2025). The moderating role of technology proficiency and academic discipline in AI-chatbot adoption within higher education: Insights from a PLS-SEM analysis. Education and Information Technologies, 30(6), 5843–5881. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-13023-0

Sevryugina, Y. V, & Li, Y. (2026). Self-plagiarism: A retrospective study of its prevalence and patterns across scientific disciplines. Accountability in Research, 33(2), 2472016. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2025.2472016

Shrivastava, P. (2025). Understanding acceptance and resistance toward generative AI technologies: A multi-theoretical framework integrating functional, risk, and sociolegal factors. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence, 8, Article 1565927. https://doi.org/10.3389/frai.2025.1565927

Smit, M., Wagner, R. F., & Bond-Barnard, T. J. (2025). Ambiguous regulations for dealing with AI in higher education can lead to moral hazards among students. Project Leadership and Society, 6, Article 100187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plas.2025.100187

Tan, Q. (2025). Factors influencing the adoption of generative AI in education: A systematic review, proposed framework and future research agenda. British Educational Research Journal, 52(2), 1219–1247. https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.70059

Ursavaş, Ö. F., Yalçın, Y., İslamoğlu, H., Bakır-Yalçın, E., & Cukurova, M. (2025). Rethinking the importance of social norms in generative AI adoption: investigating the acceptance and use of generative AI among higher education students. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 22(1), 38. https://doi.org/10.1186/S41239-025-00535-Z

Wang, L., Xu, S., & Liu, K. (2025). What drives university students to use ChatGPT for translation? Disciplinary and experiential influences. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 36(2), 1223–1234. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijal.12856




DOI: https://doi.org/10.31764/ijeca.v9i2.38332

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Copyright (c) 2026 Al Ashadi Alimin, Hastiani, Augusto Da Costa, Simão Lopes Cardoso

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

IJECA (International Journal of Education and Curriculum Application) already indexed:

            

___________________________________________________________________

  
   https://doi.org/10.31764/ijeca.

   Creative Commons License
   IJECA (International Journal of Education and Curriculum Application)
   is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

 View IJECA Stats

____________________________________________________________________

 IJECA Publisher Office: