Exploring the Role of ChatGPT in Developing Writing Skills and Critical Thinking among Vocational High School Students

Authors

  • Rohmatul Janah Universitas Muhammadiyah Purworejo, Indonesia
  • Tusino Tusino Universitas Muhammadiyah Purworejo, Indonesia
  • Puspa Dewi Universitas Muhammadiyah Purworejo, Indonesia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.35445/alishlah.v18i1.8580

Keywords:

ChatGPT, EFL writing, vocational education, classroom action research, critical thinking

Abstract

The rapid growth of generative artificial intelligence (AI), particularly ChatGPT, has introduced new possibilities for language learning through interactive feedback and writing assistance. Despite its increasing use in education, empirical evidence remains limited regarding its pedagogical role in vocational secondary schools, particularly in distinguishing its support for surface-level writing skills from deeper reasoning processes. This study investigated how ChatGPT integration could enhance students’ writing skills, foster reasoning, and influence student perceptions in a vocational high school context. This research employed a qualitative Classroom Action Research (CAR) design conducted in two cycles with 32 eleventh-grade students at SMK YPE Sawunggalih Kutoarjo, Indonesia. Data were collected through classroom observations, writing tasks, semi-structured interviews, and student reflective journals. The data were analyzed thematically, while students’ writing performance was evaluated using a rubric focusing on organization, grammar, vocabulary, and argumentation. The findings indicated consistent improvements in students’ vocabulary, grammar, and organization across the two cycles, with vocabulary showing the most notable development. Students reported that ChatGPT was useful and motivating during the writing process. However, its contribution to argumentation and critical thinking remained relatively limited. Benefits included faster idea generation and greater engagement in revision activities, while challenges involved students’ overreliance on AI-generated responses and limited skills in designing effective prompts. ChatGPT can function as an effective linguistic scaffold for supporting surface-level writing development. However, its impact on deeper reasoning and argumentation depends on structured teacher mediation and reflective instructional design. This study provides empirical evidence from a vocational secondary education context and highlights the conditions under which generative AI supports different dimensions of writing development.

References

Cao, S., Zhou, S., Luo, Y., & Wang, T. (2022). A review of the ESL / EFL learners gains from online peer feedback on English writing. October, 1-13.

https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1035803

Chan, C. K. Y., & Hu, W. (2023). Students' voices on generative AI: perceptions, benefits, and challenges in higher education. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 20(1), 43.

https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-023-00411-8

Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research Design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approach. SAGE Publications, Inc.

Ding, L., & Zou, D. (2024). Automated writing evaluation systems: A systematic review of Grammarly, Pigai, and Criterion with a perspective on future directions in the age of generative artificial intelligence. Education and Information Technologies, 29(11), 141-511-4203.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-12402-3

Dizon, G. (2024). A systematic review of Grammarly in L2 English writing contexts.

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2024.2397882

Guo, K., Wang, J., & Chu, S. K. W. (2022). Using chatbots to scaffold EFL students' argumentative writing. Assessing Writing, 54, 100-666.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2022.100666

Huisman, B., Saab, N., van den Broek, P., & van Driel, J. (2019). The impact of formative peer feedback on higher education students' academic writing: a Meta-Analysis. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 44(6), 863-880.

https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2018.1545896

Imran, M., & Almusharraf, N. (2023). Analyzing the role of ChatGPT as a writing assistant at higher education level: A systematic review of the literature. Contemporary Educational Technology, 15(4), ep464.

https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/13605

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, 1-13.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2023.102274

Koltovskaia, S. (2020). Student engagement with automated written corrective feedback (AWCF) provided by Grammarly: A multiple case study. Assessing Writing, 44, 100-450.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2020.100450

Levine, S., Beck, S. W., Mah, C., Phalen, L., & PIttman, J. (2025). How do students use ChatGPT as a writing support? Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 68(5), 445-457.

https://doi.org/10.1002/jaal.1373

Li, J., Huang, J., Wu, W., & Whipple, P. B. (2024). Evaluating the role of ChatGPT in enhancing EFL writing assessments in classroom settings: A preliminary investigation. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 11(1), 12-68.

https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-03755-2

Lingard, L. (2023). Writing with ChatGPT: An Illustration of its Capacity, Limitations & Implications for Academic Writers. Perspectives on Medical Education, 12(1), 261-270.

https://doi.org/10.5334/pme.1072

Nowell, L. S., Norris, J. M., White, D. E., & Moules, N. J. (2017). Thematic Analysis. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 16(1).

https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406917733847

Olsen, T., & Hunnes, J. (2024). Improving students' learning—the role of formative feedback: experiences from a crash course for business students in academic writing. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 49(2), 129-141.

https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2023.2187744

Polakova, P., & Ivenz, P. (2024). The impact of ChatGPT feedback on the development of EFL students' writing skills. Cogent Education, 11(1).

https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2024.2410101

Rudolph, J., Tan, S., & Tan, S. (2023). ChatGPT: Bullshit spewer or the end of traditional assessments in higher education? Journal of Applied Learning & Teaching, 6(1).

https://doi.org/10.37074/jalt.2023.6.1.9

Schoonenboom, J., & Johnson, R. B. (2017). How to Construct a Mixed Methods Research Design. KZfSS Kölner Zeitschrift Für Soziologie Und Sozialpsychologie, 69(S2), 107-131.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11577-017-0454-1

Su, Y., Lin, Y., & Lai, C. (2023). Collaborating with ChatGPT in argumentative writing classrooms. Assessing Writing, 57, 100-752.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2023.100752

Tlili, A., Shehata, B., Adarkwah, M. A., Bozkurt, A., Hickey, D. T., Huang, R., & Agyemang, B. (2023). What if the devil is my guardian angel: ChatGPT as a case study of using chatbots in education. Smart Learning Environments, 10(1).

https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-023-00237-x

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), 28.

https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-024-00316-7

Downloads

Published

2026-03-15

How to Cite

Janah, R., Tusino, T., & Dewi, P. (2026). Exploring the Role of ChatGPT in Developing Writing Skills and Critical Thinking among Vocational High School Students. AL-ISHLAH: Jurnal Pendidikan, 18(1), 302–310. https://doi.org/10.35445/alishlah.v18i1.8580

Issue

Vol. 18 No. 1 (2026): MARCH 2026

Section

Articles

Citation Check

License

Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:

  1. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
  2. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
  3. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.