In EDS ansehen

Writing with AI, thinking with Toulmin: metacognitive gaps and the rhetorical limits of argumentation

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Titel: Writing with AI, thinking with Toulmin: metacognitive gaps and the rhetorical limits of argumentation
Autoren: Tofan Stofiana, Dadang Sunendar, Yeti Mulyati, Andoyo Sastromiharjo
Quelle: Ampersand, Vol 15, Iss , Pp 100242- (2025)
Verlagsinformationen: Elsevier, 2025.
Publikationsjahr: 2025
Bestand: LCC:Philology. Linguistics
Schlagwörter: Argumentative writing, Metacognition, Metacognitive gaps, Critical AI literacy, Toulmin model, Writing assessment, Philology. Linguistics, P1-1091
Beschreibung: Argumentative writing is widely recognized as a cornerstone of academic literacy, yet it remains underdeveloped among many undergraduates, particularly in contexts where dialogic reasoning and reflective strategies are not systematically taught. This exploratory mixed-methods study examined three interrelated dimensions of writing in Indonesian EFL settings: argumentative quality analyzed through Toulmin’s model, metacognitive competence measured by the Metacognitive Awareness Inventory (MAI), and AI literacy assessed with a purpose-designed questionnaire. Data were collected from 30 final-year students across two teacher-education universities. Among Toulmin’s elements, Rebuttal scored lowest (M = 1.87, SD = 0.43), indicating a persistent weakness in counterargumentation. Metacognitive awareness showed relative strength in monitoring and evaluation but continuing weaknesses in planning and strategy adjustment, while students reported using AI tools such as Grammarly and ChatGPT primarily for surface-level corrections with limited ethical or rhetorical reflection. This study is among the first to empirically map metacognitive gaps emerging from AI-assisted argumentative writing, identifying two types: a regulatory gap (misalignment between awareness and enactment) and a critical-AI gap (mismatch between tool use and rhetorical purpose). The findings advance an integrated conceptual framework linking argumentation, metacognition, and AI literacy in digitally mediated writing. Pedagogically and for assessment design, the study suggests that instruction in argumentation, metacognitive scaffolding, and critical AI literacy should be embedded together to cultivate reflective, rhetorically aware, and ethically grounded academic writing.
Publikationsart: article
Dateibeschreibung: electronic resource
Sprache: English
ISSN: 2215-0390
Relation: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2215039025000268; https://doaj.org/toc/2215-0390
DOI: 10.1016/j.amper.2025.100242
Zugangs-URL: https://doaj.org/article/6dc5ef61c44e4001a5091d99f7e9b4a2
Dokumentencode: edsdoj.6dc5ef61c44e4001a5091d99f7e9b4a2
Datenbank: Directory of Open Access Journals
Beschreibung
Abstract:Argumentative writing is widely recognized as a cornerstone of academic literacy, yet it remains underdeveloped among many undergraduates, particularly in contexts where dialogic reasoning and reflective strategies are not systematically taught. This exploratory mixed-methods study examined three interrelated dimensions of writing in Indonesian EFL settings: argumentative quality analyzed through Toulmin’s model, metacognitive competence measured by the Metacognitive Awareness Inventory (MAI), and AI literacy assessed with a purpose-designed questionnaire. Data were collected from 30 final-year students across two teacher-education universities. Among Toulmin’s elements, Rebuttal scored lowest (M = 1.87, SD = 0.43), indicating a persistent weakness in counterargumentation. Metacognitive awareness showed relative strength in monitoring and evaluation but continuing weaknesses in planning and strategy adjustment, while students reported using AI tools such as Grammarly and ChatGPT primarily for surface-level corrections with limited ethical or rhetorical reflection. This study is among the first to empirically map metacognitive gaps emerging from AI-assisted argumentative writing, identifying two types: a regulatory gap (misalignment between awareness and enactment) and a critical-AI gap (mismatch between tool use and rhetorical purpose). The findings advance an integrated conceptual framework linking argumentation, metacognition, and AI literacy in digitally mediated writing. Pedagogically and for assessment design, the study suggests that instruction in argumentation, metacognitive scaffolding, and critical AI literacy should be embedded together to cultivate reflective, rhetorically aware, and ethically grounded academic writing.
ISSN:22150390
DOI:10.1016/j.amper.2025.100242