Penggunaan AI Chatbot sebagai Alat Sokongan Pembelajaran Diagnostik Kerosakan Enjin dalam Kalangan Pelajar Teknologi Automotif Kolej Vokasional: Satu Kajian Tindakan

Authors

  • Mohd Sazali Abd Hamid Program Teknologi Automotif, Kolej Vokasional Sungai Buloh, Jalan Kuala Selangor, U20 Shah Alam, 47000 Sungai Buloh, Selangor, MALAYSIA
  • Azrulhisham Marjuni Program Teknologi Automotif, Kolej Vokasional Sungai Buloh, Jalan Kuala Selangor, U20 Shah Alam, 47000 Sungai Buloh, Selangor, MALAYSIA
  • Muhammad Amri Nasruddin Program Teknologi Automotif, Kolej Vokasional Sungai Buloh, Jalan Kuala Selangor, U20 Shah Alam, 47000 Sungai Buloh, Selangor, MALAYSIA
  • Muhamad Solleh Abdullah Program Teknologi Automotif, Kolej Vokasional Sungai Buloh, Jalan Kuala Selangor, U20 Shah Alam, 47000 Sungai Buloh, Selangor, MALAYSIA
  • Abdullah Hakim Shahnon Program Teknologi Automotif, Kolej Vokasional Sungai Buloh, Jalan Kuala Selangor, U20 Shah Alam, 47000 Sungai Buloh, Selangor, MALAYSIA
  • Nur Eisha Fatini Zuraidi Program Teknologi Automotif, Kolej Vokasional Sungai Buloh, Jalan Kuala Selangor, U20 Shah Alam, 47000 Sungai Buloh, Selangor, MALAYSIA

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.53797/anp.jssh.v7i1.7.2026

Keywords:

AI Chatbot, Engine Fault Diagnosis, Automotive Technology, Action Research, TVET, Diagnostik Kerosakan Enjin, Teknologi Automotif, Kajian Tindakan

Abstract

This action research study examined the use of an AI chatbot as a learning support tool for engine fault diagnosis among 30 first-semester Malaysian Vocational Certificate (SVM) Automotive Technology students at a vocational college in Selangor. It followed the Kemmis and McTaggart action research model using a one-group pre-test and post-test design across a seven-week study period. The chatbot was not a sole diagnostic source: every response had to be verified against the service manual, physical inspection and teacher confirmation under a layered verification protocol. The mean score rose from 39.10 (SD = 3.42) to 82.70 (SD = 5.91), a difference of 43.60 points, 95% CI [41.37, 45.83], t(29) = 39.93, p < .001, with a normalized gain of 0.716. All 30 participants improved, but only 19 reached the high N-Gain category. The Cohen's dz of 7.29 is not interpreted as an intervention effect: the narrow pre-test standard deviation and the absence of a control group mean it reflects sample homogeneity and ordinary curriculum learning. A 20-item questionnaire recorded an overall mean of 4.31 (SD = 0.32) with a Cronbach's alpha of .897, 95% CI [.835, .943]; however, 96% of the 600 responses fell on scale points 4 or 5 and none below 3, a pattern consistent with socially desirable responding given that the researcher was also the class teacher. Findings are reported as changes in achievement and acceptance following the intervention, not as causal evidence. The study's contribution is a layered verification protocol for TVET diagnostic teaching.

Abstrak: Kajian tindakan ini meneliti penggunaan AI Chatbot sebagai alat sokongan pembelajaran diagnostik kerosakan enjin dalam kalangan 30 orang pelajar Sijil Vokasional Malaysia (SVM) Teknologi Automotif Semester 1 di sebuah kolej vokasional di Selangor. Kajian dilaksanakan mengikut model kajian tindakan Kemmis dan McTaggart menggunakan reka bentuk satu kumpulan ujian pra dan ujian pos dalam tempoh kajian tujuh minggu. AI Chatbot tidak digunakan sebagai sumber diagnosis tunggal kerana setiap respons wajib disahkan melalui manual servis, pemeriksaan fizikal dan bimbingan guru mengikut protokol pengesahan berlapis. Skor min meningkat daripada 39.10 (SP = 3.42) kepada 82.70 (SP = 5.91), iaitu perbezaan 43.60 mata, 95% SK [41.37, 45.83], t(29) = 39.93, p < .001, dengan peningkatan ternormal 0.716. Kesemua 30 peserta merekodkan peningkatan, tetapi hanya 19 orang mencapai kategori N-Gain tinggi. Saiz kesan Cohen dz sebanyak 7.29 tidak ditafsirkan sebagai kesan intervensi kerana sisihan piawai ujian pra yang sempit dan ketiadaan kumpulan kawalan menjadikan nilai tersebut mencerminkan kehomogenan sampel dan pembelajaran kurikulum biasa. Soal selidik 20 item merekodkan min keseluruhan 4.31 (SP = 0.32) dengan alfa Cronbach .897, 95% SK [.835, .943], namun 96% daripada 600 respons berada pada skala 4 atau 5 dan tiada satu pun respons di bawah 3, iaitu pola yang konsisten dengan kecenderungan jawapan yang diingini secara sosial memandangkan pengkaji juga guru kelas. Dapatan dilaporkan sebagai perubahan pencapaian dan penerimaan selepas intervensi, bukan bukti kausal. Sumbangan utama kajian ialah protokol pengesahan berlapis bagi pengajaran diagnostik TVET.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Ab. Jalil, A. A., & Lee, M. F. (2025). Kesediaan institusi TVET ke arah penggunaan teknologi kecerdasan buatan dalam era digital. Online Journal for TVET Practitioners, 10(2), 34-42. https://doi.org/10.30880/ojtp.2025.10.02.003

Abd Samad, N., Tuan Ahmad, T. A., Ismail, A., Amiruddin, M. H., & Mohd Nor, S. N. F. (2017). Kerangka pembelajaran berasaskan proses kerja Kurikulum Standard Kolej Vokasional (KSKV) Diploma Vokasional Malaysia. Online Journal for TVET Practitioners, 2(2).

Abdul Rahman, A. B. W., Mohammad Hussain, M. A., & Mohd Zulkifli, R. (2020). Teaching vocational with technology: A study of teaching aids applied in Malaysian vocational classroom. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 19(7), 176-188. https://doi.org/10.26803/ijlter.19.7.10

Abele, S. (2018). Diagnostic problem-solving process in professional contexts: Theory and empirical investigation in the context of car mechatronics using computer-generated log-files. Vocations and Learning, 11(1), 133-159. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12186-017-9183-x

Al Hakim, V. G., Paiman, N. A., & Rahman, M. H. S. (2024). Genie-on-demand: A custom AI chatbot for enhancing learning performance, self-efficacy, and technology acceptance in occupational health and safety for engineering education. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 32(6). https://doi.org/10.1002/cae.22800

Albadarin, Y., Saqr, M., Pope, N., & Tukiainen, M. (2024). A systematic literature review of empirical research on ChatGPT in education. Discover Education, 3, Article 60. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44217-024-00138-2

Bujang, M. A., Omar, E. D., & Baharum, N. A. (2018). A review on sample size determination for Cronbach's alpha test: A simple guide for researchers. The Malaysian Journal of Medical Sciences, 25(6), 85-99. https://doi.org/10.21315/mjms2018.25.6.9

Chernikova, O., Heitzmann, N., Stadler, M., Holzberger, D., Seidel, T., & Fischer, F. (2020). Simulation-based learning in higher education: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 90(4), 499-541. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654320933544

Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the crafts of reading, writing, and mathematics. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 453-494). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Deng, R., Jiang, M., Yu, X., Lu, Y., & Liu, S. (2025). Does ChatGPT enhance student learning? A systematic review and meta-analysis of experimental studies. Computers & Education, 227, Article 105224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2024.105224

Deslauriers, L., McCarty, L. S., Miller, K., Callaghan, K., & Kestin, G. (2019). Measuring actual learning versus feeling of learning in response to being actively engaged in the classroom. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116(39), 19251-19257. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1821936116

Fan, Y., Tang, L., Le, H., Shen, K., Tan, S., Zhao, Y., Shen, Y., Li, X., & Gašević, D. (2025). Beware of metacognitive laziness: Effects of generative artificial intelligence on learning motivation, processes, and performance. British Journal of Educational Technology, 56(2), 489-530. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13544

Guan, R., Raković, M., Chen, G., & Gašević, D. (2025). How educational chatbots support self-regulated learning? A systematic review of the literature. Education and Information Technologies, 30(4), 4493-4518. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-12881-y

Hake, R. R. (1998). Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. American Journal of Physics, 66(1), 64-74. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.18809

Hillmayr, D., Ziernwald, L., Reinhold, F., Hofer, S. I., & Reiss, K. M. (2020). The potential of digital tools to enhance mathematics and science learning in secondary schools: A context-specific meta-analysis. Computers & Education, 153, Article 103897. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103897

Ismail, Z., Joseph, V. R., & Abdul Mutalib, A. (2025). The development and usability of interactive comics based on 5S practices to enhance students' comprehension of safety and cleanliness in workplaces and labs. Asian Journal of Vocational Education and Humanities, 6(2), 21-29. https://doi.org/10.53797/ajvah.v6i2.3.2025

Jefferi, A. A., Mohd Hisham, N. A. F., Megat Aruki, N. F. H., Marjuni, A., Samsuddin, S. N. A., & Ismail, M. A. (2025). Development of a Multi-CartClimb for automotive technology students at vocational colleges. Asian Journal of Vocational Education and Humanities, 6(2), 48-53. https://doi.org/10.53797/ajvah.v6i2.6.2025

Jin, Y., & Sercu, L. (2025). ChatGPT interventions in higher education: A systematic review of experimental studies. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 41(4), Article e70072. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.70072

Jonassen, D. H., & Hung, W. (2006). Learning to troubleshoot: A new theory-based design architecture. Educational Psychology Review, 18(1), 77-114. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-006-9001-8

Kasneci, E., Sessler, K., Küchemann, S., Bannert, M., Dementieva, D., Fischer, F., Gasser, U., Groh, G., Günnemann, S., Hüllermeier, E., Krusche, S., Kutyniok, G., Michaeli, T., Nerdel, C., Pfeffer, J., Poquet, O., Sailer, M., Schmidt, A., Seidel, T., ... Kasneci, G. (2023). ChatGPT for good? On opportunities and challenges of large language models for education. Learning and Individual Differences, 103, Article 102274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2023.102274

Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia. (2023). Dasar pendidikan digital. Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia. https://www.moe.gov.my/dasarmenu/dasar-pendidikan-digital

Kementerian Pendidikan Tinggi. (2024). Garis panduan penggunaan teknologi kecerdasan buatan generatif (KBG) dalam pengajaran dan pembelajaran (PdP) pendidikan tinggi. Kementerian Pendidikan Tinggi. https://repositori.mohe.gov.my/id/eprint/109

Kemmis, S., McTaggart, R., & Nixon, R. (2014). The action research planner: Doing critical participatory action research. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-4560-67-2

Knapp, T. R. (2016). Why is the one-group pretest-posttest design still used? Clinical Nursing Research, 25(5), 467-472. https://doi.org/10.1177/1054773816666280

Lo, C. K. (2023). What is the impact of ChatGPT on education? A rapid review of the literature. Education Sciences, 13(4), Article 410. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13040410

Lo, C. K., Hew, K. F., & Jong, M. S.-y. (2024). The influence of ChatGPT on student engagement: A systematic review and future research agenda. Computers & Education, 219, Article 105100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2024.105100

Majlis TVET Negara. (2024). Dasar TVET Negara 2030. Sekretariat Majlis TVET Negara. https://www.tvet.gov.my/manual/MTVET_DASAR_TVET_NEGARA_2030.pdf

McGrath, C., Farazouli, A., & Cerratto-Pargman, T. (2025). Generative AI chatbots in higher education: A review of an emerging research area. Higher Education, 89(6), 1533-1549. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-024-01288-w

Md Yazid, N. A., & Ali, A. (2025). Pengaruh minat dan sikap terhadap motivasi pelajar di Kolej Vokasional Zon Selatan. Online Journal for TVET Practitioners, 10(2), 92-100. https://doi.org/10.30880/ojtp.2025.10.02.009

Miao, F., & Holmes, W. (2023). Guidance for generative AI in education and research. UNESCO. https://doi.org/10.54675/EWZM9535

Mohebi, L. (2024). Empowering learners with ChatGPT: Insights from a systematic literature exploration. Discover Education, 3, Article 36. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44217-024-00120-y

Norazizan, A. H., Hamzah, M. A. I., Azmi, N. E., Nugroho, D. H., & Mohd Zain, M. (2025). Developing the KVSB EasyBus mobile application. Asian Journal of Vocational Education and Humanities, 6(1), 34-38. https://doi.org/10.53797/ajvah.v6i1.5.2025

Rodrigues, L., Pereira, F. D., Toda, A. M., Palomino, P. T., Pessoa, M., Carvalho, L. S. G., Fernandes, D., Oliveira, E. H. T., Cristea, A. I., & Isotani, S. (2022). Gamification suffers from the novelty effect but benefits from the familiarization effect: Findings from a longitudinal study. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 19(1), Article 13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-021-00314-6

Sailer, M., Maier, R., Berger, S., Kastorff, T., & Stegmann, K. (2024). Learning activities in technology-enhanced learning: A systematic review of meta-analyses and second-order meta-analysis in higher education. Learning and Individual Differences, 112, Article 102446. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2024.102446

Sangin, S. N. P., & Azman, M. N. A. (2024). Pembangunan aplikasi mudah alih bagi topik keselamatan bengkel sebagai nilai tambah bagi kursus VDC 3013 Pengurusan dan Keselamatan Bengkel. ANP Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities, 5(2), 55-64. https://doi.org/10.53797/anp.jssh.v5i2.8.2024

Sell, R., Razdan, R., Kase, K., & Rüütmann, T. (2025). The role of AI chatbots in engineering education: Experimental findings and implementation strategies. International Journal of Engineering Pedagogy, 15(5), 4-19. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijep.v15i5.56681

Sullivan, G. M., & Artino, A. R., Jr. (2013). Analyzing and interpreting data from Likert-type scales. Journal of Graduate Medical Education, 5(4), 541-542. https://doi.org/10.4300/JGME-5-4-18

Taber, K. S. (2018). The use of Cronbach's alpha when developing and reporting research instruments in science education. Research in Science Education, 48(6), 1273-1296. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-016-9602-2

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes (M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman, Eds.). Harvard University Press.

Walters, W. H., & Wilder, E. I. (2023). Fabrication and errors in the bibliographic citations generated by ChatGPT. Scientific Reports, 13(1), Article 14045. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-41032-5

Zhai, C., Wibowo, S., & Li, L. D. (2024). The effects of over-reliance on AI dialogue systems on students' cognitive abilities: A systematic review. Smart Learning Environments, 11(1), Article 28. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-024-00316-7

Zhou, R., He, X., Fan, Q., Li, Y., Li, Y., Xiao, X., & Fang, J. (2025). Exploring ChatGPT-facilitated scaffolding in undergraduates' mathematical problem solving. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 41(4), Article e70077. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.70077

Published

2026-09-18

How to Cite

Abd Hamid, M. S., Marjuni, A., Nasruddin, M. A., Abdullah, M. S., Shahnon, A. H., & Zuraidi, N. E. F. (2026). Penggunaan AI Chatbot sebagai Alat Sokongan Pembelajaran Diagnostik Kerosakan Enjin dalam Kalangan Pelajar Teknologi Automotif Kolej Vokasional: Satu Kajian Tindakan. ANP Journal of Social Science and Humanities , 7(1), 69-82. https://doi.org/10.53797/anp.jssh.v7i1.7.2026