Can AI Prompts Scaffold Critical Thinking in EFL Academic Writing? A Qualitative Case Study
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.29408/veles.v10i1.31762Keywords:
generative AI, AI prompts, cognitive scaffolding, EFL academic writing, critical thinking, student engagementAbstract
Generative AI is increasingly used in EFL academic writing, yet its pedagogical value depends on whether students use it as a tool for thinking or merely as a shortcut for text production. This study explored how generative AI prompts functioned as cognitive scaffolding in EFL students’ academic writing, particularly in relation to idea development, writing organization, engagement, and critical thinking. Using a qualitative case study design, the study involved 10 undergraduate EFL students enrolled in a second-semester Academic Writing course at a university in Malang, Indonesia. Data were collected through classroom observations, screen-recorded writing sessions, students’ writing documents, semi-structured interviews, and reflection journals, and were analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis. The findings revealed that generative AI prompts supported students by activating initial ideas, clarifying concepts, and helping them organize writing into more coherent and logical structures. AI prompts also reduced hesitation and increased students’ confidence during the writing process by offering immediate support when they felt stuck. However, the findings also showed a risk of overreliance, as some students copied or minimally revised AI-generated text without sufficient evaluation. More reflective students used AI prompts to compare ideas, identify weaknesses, evaluate paragraph connections, and revise arguments more purposefully. These findings suggest that generative AI prompts can serve as cognitive scaffolding when they encourage planning, evaluation, and reflective revision, but they may weaken students’ intellectual ownership when used passively. To maximize their value in EFL academic writing, AI-assisted instruction should include explicit prompt literacy, critical evaluation of AI responses, revision-based tasks, and teacher-guided reflection so that students write with AI rather than by AI.
References
Altınmakas, D., & Bayyurt, Y. (2018). An exploratory study on factors influencing undergraduate students’ academic writing practices in Turkey. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 37, 88–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2018.11.006
Andewi, W., Waziana, W., Wibisono, D., Putra, K. A., Hastomo, T., & Oktarin, I. B. (2025). From Prompting to Proficiency: A Mixed-Methods Analysis of Prompting with ChatGPT Versus Lecturer Interaction in an EFL Classroom. Journal of Studies in the English Language, 20(2), 210–238. https://doi.org/10.64731/jsel.v20i2.282318
Angrosino, M. (2007). Doing ethnographic and observational research. SAGE.
Ariyanti, A., & Fitriana, R. (2017). EFL Students’ Difficulties and Needs in Essay writing. Proceedings of the International Conference on Teacher Training and Education 2017 (ICTTE 2017). https://doi.org/10.2991/ictte-17.2017.4
Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27–40. https://doi.org/10.3316/QRJ0902027
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2022). Thematic analysis: A practical guide. SAGE.
Bulqiyah, S., Mahbub, M. A., & Nugraheni, D. A. (2021). Investigating writing difficulties in essay writing: Tertiary students’ perspectives. English Language Teaching Educational Journal, 4(1), 61–73. https://doi.org/10.12928/eltej.v4i1.2371
Byrne, D. (2022). A worked example of Braun and Clarke’s approach to reflexive thematic analysis. Quality & Quantity, 56(3), 1391–1412. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-021-01182-y
Chuang, P.-L., & Yan, X. (2022). An investigation of the relationship between argument structure and essay quality in assessed writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 56, 100892. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2022.100892
Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (4th ed.). SAGE.
Fajaryani, N., Mukminin, A., Hidayat, M., Muhaimin, M., Haryanto, E., Nazurty, N., Marzulina, L., Harto, K., & Habibi, A. (2021). Cultural capital and Argumentative writing in English: Challenges and strategies used by EFL student teachers. The Qualitative Report. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2021.4784
Galletta, A. (2013). Mastering the semi-structured interview and beyond: From research design to analysis and publication. NYU Press.
García-Moro, F. J., Gómez-Baya, D., Muñoz-Silva, A., & Martín-Romero, N. (2021). A qualitative and quantitative study on critical thinking in social education degree students. Sustainability, 13(12), 6865. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13126865
Gayed, J. M., Carlon, M. K. J., Oriola, A. M., & Cross, J. S. (2022). Exploring an AI-based writing assistant’s impact on English language learners. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 3, 100055. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2022.100055
Ghanizadeh, A. (2017). The interplay between reflective thinking, critical thinking, self-monitoring, and academic achievement in higher education. Higher Education, 74(1), 101–114. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-016-0031-y
Huang, Y., & Zhang, L. J. (2022). Facilitating L2 writers’ metacognitive strategy use in argumentative writing using a process-genre approach. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, Article 1036831. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1036831
Hyers, L. L. (2018). Diary methods: Understanding qualitative research. Oxford University Press.
Ka-Kan-Dee, M., & Kaur, S. (2015). Teaching strategies used by Thai EFL lecturers to teach argumentative writing. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 208, 143–156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.11.191
Kochmar, E., Vu, D. D., Belfer, R., Gupta, V., Serban, I. V., & Pineau, J. (2022). Automated data-driven generation of personalized pedagogical interventions in intelligent tutoring systems. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 32(2), 323–349. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-021-00267-x
Li, H. H., & Zhang, L. J. (2022). Investigating the effects of Small-Group Student talk on the quality of argument in Chinese Tertiary English as a foreign language learners’ argumentative writing. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 868045. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.868045
Li, J., Link, S., & Hegelheimer, V. (2015). Rethinking the role of automated writing evaluation (AWE) feedback in ESL writing instruction. Journal of Second Language Writing, 27, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2014.10.004
Lim, F. V., & Phua, J. (2019). Teaching writing with language feedback technology. Computers and Composition, 54, Article 102518. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2019.102518
Liu, M., Zhang, L. J., & Biebricher, C. (2023). Investigating students’ cognitive processes in generative AI-assisted digital multimodal composing and traditional writing. Computers & Education, 211, 104977. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2023.104977
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2020). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (4th ed.). SAGE.
Nejmaoui, N. (2019). Improving EFL learners’ critical thinking skills in argumentative writing. English Language Teaching, 12(1), 98–109. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v12n1p98
Ozfidan, B., & Mitchell, C. (2020). Detected difficulties in argumentative writing: the case of culturally and linguistically Saudi backgrounded students. Journal of Ethnic and Cultural Studies, 15–29. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejecs/382
Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (4th ed.). SAGE.
Petchprasert, A. (2021). Utilizing an automated tool analysis to evaluate EFL students’ writing performances. Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education, 6(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40862-020-00107-w
Qin, C., Zhang, R., & Xiao, Y. (2022). A questionnaire-based validation of metacognitive strategies in writing and their predictive effects on the writing performance of English as foreign language student writers. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, Article 1071907. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1071907
Ranalli, J. (2021). L2 student engagement with automated feedback on writing: Potential for learning and issues of trust. Journal of Second Language Writing, 52, Article 100816. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2021.100816
Robillos, R. J., & Thongpai, J. (2022). Computer-aided argument mapping within a metacognitive approach: Its impact on students’ argumentative writing performance and self-regulated learning. LEARN Journal: Language Education and Acquisition Research Network, 15(2), 160–186.
Rusfandi. (2015). Argument-Counterargument structure in Indonesian EFL Learners’ English Argumentative Essays: A Dialogic Concept of Writing. RELC Journal, 46(2), 181–197. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688215587607
Saldaña, J. (2021). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (4th ed.). SAGE.
Setyowati, L., Agustina, F., Sukmawan, S., El-Sulukiyyah, A. A., & Mabaroh, B. (2020). The students’ problems and solutions in writing an argumentative essay on gender issue. Journal of English Language Teaching and Linguistics, 5(3), 279. https://doi.org/10.21462/jeltl.v5i3.424
Sun, Q., & Zhang, L. J. (2022). Understanding learners’ metacognitive experiences in learning to write in English as a foreign language: A structural equation modeling approach. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, Article 986301. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.986301
Sundari, H., & Febriyanti, R. H. (2021). The Analysis of Indonesian EFL Argumentative Writing Using Toulmin’s Model: The Structure and Struggles from the Learners. Scope Journal of English Language Teaching, 5(2), 67. https://doi.org/10.30998/scope.v5i2.8544
Teng, F. (2019). Tertiary-level students’ English writing performance and metacognitive awareness: A group metacognitive support perspective. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 64(4), 551–568. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2019.1595712
Teng, F. (2020). The role of metacognitive knowledge and regulation in mediating university EFL learners’ writing performance. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 14(5), 436–450. https://doi.org/10.1080/17501229.2019.1615493
Tiandem-Adamou, Y. (2025). Using generative artificial intelligence to support EFL students’ writing proficiency in university in China. Journal of Educational Technology and Innovation, 6(4). https://doi.org/10.61414/jeti.v6i4.213
Toba, R., Noor, W. N., & Sanu, L. O. (2019). The current issues of Indonesian EFL students’ writing skills: Ability, problem, and reason in writing comparison and contrast essay. Dinamika Ilmu, 19(1), 57–73. https://doi.org/10.21093/di.v19i1.1506
Wang, Y. (2024). Cognitive and sociocultural dynamics of self-regulated use of machine translation and generative AI tools in academic EFL writing. System, 126, 103505. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2024.103505
Wu, Y., & Schunn, C. D. (2021). The effects of providing and receiving peer feedback on writing performance and learning of secondary school students. American Educational Research Journal, 58(3), 492–526. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831220945266
Xu, C. (2018). Understanding online revisions in L2 writing: A computer keystroke-log perspective. System, 78, 104–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2018.08.007
Zhang, Z. V. (2020). Engaging with automated writing evaluation (AWE) feedback on L2 writing: Student perceptions and revisions. Assessing Writing, 43, 100439. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2019.100439
Zhang, Z. V., & Hyland, K. (2018). Student engagement with teacher and automated feedback on L2 writing. Assessing Writing, 36, 90–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2018.02.004
Zhao, C. G., & Liao, L. (2021). Metacognitive strategy use in L2 writing assessment. System, 98, 102472. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2021.102472
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Muhammad Deni Irkhamil Maulana, Agus Widyantoro
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with VELES agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal the right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License (CC BY-SA 4.0).
- Authors can enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., posting it to an institutional repository or publishing it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) before and during the submission process, as this can lead to productive exchanges and earlier and greater citations of published work.
VELES is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
