CHATGPT AS A SCAFFOLDING IN ENGLISH WRITING OF EFL STUDENTS: LITERATURE REVIEW
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.31851/mvsvma93Keywords:
ChatGPT, Scaffolding Theory, EFL Writing, AI in Education, Digital Scaffolding, Sociocultural TheoryAbstract
This study aims to conduct a systematic literature review on the role of ChatGPT as scaffolding in English writing instruction for EFL students by identifying how previous studies position ChatGPT in the writing process, examining the integration of scaffolding theory, and analyzing its pedagogical implications. This research employed a systematic literature review design using Google Scholar as the primary academic database. Twenty peer-reviewed journal articles published between 2016 and 2026 were selected and evaluated using the JBI Critical Appraisal for Experimental Studies instrument to assess methodological quality, validity, and relevance, including Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT) and experimental research designs. The findings demonstrate that most studies position ChatGPT primarily as an AI-assisted writing tool rather than explicitly conceptualizing it as scaffolding. Existing research mainly emphasizes students’ perceptions, motivation, and improvements in writing performance, while only limited studies incorporate Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory and the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD). The novelty of this study lies in framing ChatGPT from a Vygotskian scaffolding perspective, providing a clearer theoretical foundation for understanding AI as structured cognitive support in EFL writing instruction.
References
Aljuaid, H. (2024). The impact of artificial intelligence tools on academic writing instruction in higher education: A systematic review. Arab World English Journal (AWEJ), Special Issue on ChatGPT, 26–55. https://doi.org/10.24093/awej/ChatGPT.2
Amirjalili, F., Neysani, M., & Nikbakht, A. (2024). Exploring the boundaries of authorship: A comparative analysis of AI-generated text and human academic writing in English literature. Frontiers in Education, 9, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2024.1347421An, X., Pei, K., & Cai, L. (2025). Evidence-based strategies for blind placement of nasojejunal feeding tubes in ICU patients. Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare, 18, 6287–6297. https://doi.org/10.2147/JMDH.S553373
Askhatova, A. (2020). Importance of vocabulary and spoken grammar in teaching spontaneous speaking skill. Sciences of Europe, 49.
Azwar, T. A., & Jayanti, F. G. (2025). Examining Indonesian EFL students’ acceptance of ChatGPT as a supplementary English grammar learning resource. Wiralodra English Journal, 9(1), 123–137. https://doi.org/10.31943/wej.v9i1.402
Cipta, Y. A., Rasuki, M., & Fatkurochman, H. (2025). Improving EFL students’ writing performance through ChatGPT. Jurnal Penelitian Humaniora, 58–66. https://doi.org/10.23917/humaniora.v26i2.11540
Creswell, J. W. (2022). A concise introduction to mixed methods research (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications.
Dewi, F. (2024). The inception of ideas: How students use ChatGPT for academic writing. Jurnal Sosioteknologi, 23(2), 291–304. https://doi.org/10.5614/sostek.itbj.2024.23.2.10
Ginanjar, T., Nurhidayat, E., & Herdiawan, R. D. (2024). Effectiveness of reciprocal teaching in enhancing reading comprehension in Majalengka. Papanda Journal of English Education, 3(2), 56–60. https://doi.org/10.56916/pjee.v3i2.1814Habsy, B. A., Arsyada, A. D., Ilmawati, N. K., Nurussani, S., & Abdullah, K. H. (2024). A literature review of bibliotherapy methods in group guidance. Jurnal Kajian Pendidikan Dan Psikologi, 2(2), 10–26. https://doi.org/10.61397/jkpp.v2i2.144
Hakim, M. R., Nurkamto, J., & Haryati, S. (2025). English-major students’ experiences of using ChatGPT in academic writing: A narrative inquiry in Surakarta.
He, R., Xu, W., Dong, D., & Yu, Z. (2024). A meta-analysis of the effect of interactive technologies on language education. International Journal of Adult Education and Technology, 15(1), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJAET.340933
Jiang, F. (Kevin), & Hyland, K. (2025). Does ChatGPT write like a student? Engagement markers in argumentative essays. Written Communication, 42(3), 463–492. https://doi.org/10.1177/07410883251328311John-Steiner, V., & Mahn, H. (2020). Sociocultural approaches to learning and development: A Vygotskian framework. Educational Psychologist, 31(3–4), 191–206. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.1996.9653266Kasneci, 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, 102274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2023.102274
Koraishi, O. (2023). Teaching English in the age of AI: Embracing ChatGPT to optimize EFL materials and assessment. Language Education & Technology Journal, 3(1), 55–72.
Lubis, N. K., Azhar, F., & Daud, A. (2025). Students’ perception towards ChatGPT for academic writing at English Study Program FKIP Universitas Riau. 13(2).
Lukita, C., Hardini, M., Pranata, S., Julianingsih, D., & Santoso, N. P. L. (2023). Transformation of entrepreneurship and digital technology students in the era of Revolution 4.0. APTISI Transactions on Technopreneurship, 5(3), 291–304. https://doi.org/10.34306/att.v5i3.356
Mallows, D. (2019). Designed-in and contingent scaffolding in the teaching practice groups model. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 9(1). https://doi.org/10.17509/ijal.v9i1.16141Mei, P., Brewis, D. N., Nwaiwu, F., Sumanathilaka, D., Alva-Manchego, F., & Demaree-Cotton, J. (2025). If ChatGPT can do it, where is my creativity? Generative AI boosts performance but diminishes experience in creative writing. Computers in Human Behavior: Artificial Humans, 4, 100140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chbah.2025.100140
Pratiwi, F., Suharsih, S., & Fargianti, Y. (2022). Students’ perception of using animation video in teaching writing narrative text. Journal of Linguistics, Literacy, and Pedagogy, 1(1), 11–18.
Puspitoningrum, E., Khan, R. I., & Swanjaya, D. (2024). Creative writing as an effort to improve children’s emotional intelligence. Qubahan Academic Journal, 4(3), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.48161/qaj.v4n3a695
Putri, I. C., & Imaniah, I. (2025). Using ChatGPT to support EFL writing: Student insights and experiences. 13(2).
Rakha, N. (2023). Revolution in learning through digitization: How technology is changing the landscape of education. International Journal of Cyber Law, 1(3), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.59022/ijcl.38
Royani, I., & Sihombing, M. R. (2023). Exploring the opportunities and challenges of ChatGPT in academic writing. In International Conference on Educational Theories, Practices, and Research, 1(01), 277–286.
Song, C., & Song, Y. (2023). Enhancing academic writing skills and motivation: Assessing the efficacy of ChatGPT in AI-assisted language learning for EFL students. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1260843. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1260843
Suharyat, Y., & Lusiana, L. (2023). The investigation of students’ writing skills in learning English as a second language in Indonesia. European Journal of English Language Studies, 3(1), 47–57. https://doi.org/10.12973/ejels.3.1.47Tanjung, F. Z. (2020). Teachers’ views on the integration of technology in EFL classroom. IJIET (International Journal of Indonesian Education and Teaching), 4(2), 208–215. https://doi.org/10.24071/ijiet.v4i2.2344Teng, M. F. (2024). “ChatGPT is the companion, not enemies”: EFL learners’ perceptions and experiences in using ChatGPT for feedback in writing. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 7, 100270. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2024.100270
Waruwu, M. (2022). Peningkatan kemampuan menulis paragraf argumentasi dengan menggunakan model pembelajaran cooperative integrated reading and composition. 1(1), 300–306.
Widiana. (2021). National education and development.
Wiliana, A., & Djajanegara, S. (2020). The effect of vocabulary mastery and grammar on students’ writing skills in narrative text. INFERENCE: Journal of English Language Teaching, 2(3), 273–279.
Yulistyawan, F., Halim, A., & Puspita, R. H. (2025). Use of ChatGPT in writing: English students’ perception and satisfaction. English Language Teaching Methodology, 5(2), 165–175. https://doi.org/10.56983/eltm.v5i2.1868
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Ni Made Ardita Arya Putri, Djuwari Djuwari, Edi Pujo Basuki
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Copyright Notice
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
In order to assure the highest standards for published articles, a peer review policy is applied. In pursue of the compliance with academic standards, all parties involved in the publishing process (the authors, the editors and the editorial board and the reviewers) agree to meet the responsibilities stated below in accordance to the Journal publication ethics and malpractice statement.
Duties of Authors:
- The author(s) warrant that the submitted article is an original work, which has not been previously published, and that they have obtained an agreement from any co-author(s) prior to the manuscript’s submission;
- The author(s) should not submit articles describing essentially the same research to more than one journal;
- The authors(s) make certain that the manuscript meets the terms of the Manuscript Submission Guideline regarding appropriate academic citation and that no copyright infringement occurs;
- The authors(s) should inform the editors about any conflict of interests and report any errors they subsequently, discover in their manuscript.
Duties of Editors and the Editorial Board:
- The editors, together with the editorial board, are responsible for deciding upon the publication or rejection of the submitted manuscripts based only on their originality, significance, and relevance to the domains of the journal;
- The editors evaluate the manuscripts compliance with academic criteria, the domains of the journal and the guidelines;
- The editors must at all times respect the confidentiality of any information pertaining to the submitted manuscripts;
- The editors assign the review of each manuscript to two reviewers chosen according to their domains of expertise. The editors must take into account any conflict of interest reported by the authors and the reviewers.
- The editors must ensure that the comments and recommendations of the reviewers are sent to the author(s) in due time and that the manuscripts are returned to the editors, who take the final decision to publish them or not.
Authors are permitted and encouraged to post online a pre-publication manuscript (but not the Publisher final formatted PDF version of the Work) in institutional repositories or on their Websites prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (see The Effect of Open Access). Any such posting made before acceptance and publication of the Work shall be updated upon publication to include a reference to the Publisher-assigned DOI (Digital Object Identifier) and a link to the online abstract for the final published Work in the Journal.
