From Algorithmic Scaffolding to Cognitive Withdrawal: A Three-Phase Classroom Experiment on AI Regulation in EFL Debates

Authors

  • Tatum Derin Universitas Lancang Kuning, Indonesia Author https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0725-5490
  • Hilmiy Hafizhah Andira Universitas Lancang Kuning, Indonesia Author
  • Lu’Luatul Awaliyah University of Cambridge, United Kingdom Author

Keywords:

AI Reliance, Algorithmic Scaffolding, Cognitive Offloading, Critical Thinking, Debate

Abstract

AI complexifies the tensions of what it means to “know” a language and to perform that knowledge authentically in communicative settings. This study examines how varying levels of AI access reshape oral performance, linguistic choice, and critical engagement in EFL academic debates. 30 undergraduate students participated in a three-week structured debate intervention under escalating regulation: (1) unrestricted phone use, (2) AI reliance discouraged, and (3) complete device prohibition. Debate rounds were systematically coded for language use, response latency, and response quality. Results reveal a paradoxical trajectory of the eligible data from 18 students who participated through all debate rounds. In Week 1, unrestricted AI access produced fluent but script-dependent English delivery, characterized by delayed responses linked to live translation and reading behaviors. In Week 2, verbal warnings did not significantly reduce AI-script dependence. In Week 3, device prohibition eliminated scripted reading but led to increased hesitation and code-switching, with many immediate responses occurring in the native language rather than English. The findings introduce the construct of algorithmic scaffolding withdrawal, suggesting that abrupt removal of AI support exposes underlying linguistic insecurity rather than restoring spontaneous English fluency. The study challenges simplistic policy assumptions that banning AI enhances authenticity and argues for graduated scaffolding models that rebuild internalized language competence while preserving critical reasoning capacity.

References

Al-Zahrani, A. M. (2024). Unveiling the shadows: Beyond the hype of AI in education. Heliyon, 10(9). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e30696

Arce, C. M., Gavilanes, J. C., Arce, E. M., Haro, E. M., & Bonilla-Jurado, D. (2025). Artificial Intelligence in Higher Education: Predictive Analysis of Attitudes and Dependency Among Ecuadorian University Students. Sustainability, 17(17), 7741. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17177741

Baer, A. (2025). Unpacking Predominant Narratives about Generative AI and Education: A Starting Point for Teaching Critical AI Literacy and Imagining Better Futures. Library Trends, 73(3), 141–159.

Balakrishnan, V., & Claiborne, L. B. (2012). Vygotsky from ZPD to ZCD in moral education: Reshaping Western theory and practices in local context. Journal of Moral Education, 41(2), 225–243. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057240.2012.678056

Bender, S. M. (2024). Awareness of Artificial Intelligence as an Essential Digital Literacy: ChatGPT and Gen-AI in the Classroom. Changing English. (world). https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/1358684X.2024.2309995

Chea, P., & Xiao, Y. (2024). Artificial Intelligence in Higher Education: The Power and Damage of AI-assisted Tools on Academic English Reading Skills. Journal of General Education and Humanities, 3(3), 287–306. https://doi.org/10.58421/gehu.v3i3.242

Cheng, Y., Boyraz, M., Taylor, J. L., & Gilbert, R. (2023). Investigating College Students’ and Instructors’ Perspectives on Adopting Technologies for Public Speaking Skills Development in a Hispanic Serving University. International Journal of Education and Development Using Information and Communication Technology, 19(1), 80–101.

Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2017). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. SAGE Publications.

Dang, B., Nguyen, A., & Hong, Y. (2024, June 9). Decoding GenAI-assisted Academic Writing Processes: Insights from Lag Sequential and Epistemic Network Analyses [A4]. Association for Information Systems. 5cf94e5d-22a2-495e-82da-7b7e480759a0. https://oulurepo.oulu.fi/handle/10024/52829

Ebadi, S., Velayati, S., Ramezanzadeh, A., & Rawdhan Salman, A. (2025). Exploring the impact of AI-powered speaking tasks on EFL learners’ speaking performance and anxiety: An activity theory study. Acta Psychologica, 259, 105391. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2025.105391

Fauzi, I., & Hanifah, D. (2018). Developing Students’ Speaking Ability Through Powerpoint Presentation. Loquen: English Studies Journal, 11(2), Article 2. https://doi.org/10.32678/loquen.v11i02.864

Gerlich, M. (2025). AI Tools in Society: Impacts on Cognitive Offloading and the Future of Critical Thinking. Societies, 15(1), 6. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3390/soc15010006

Kamariah, A., Husain, D., Atmowardoyo, H., & Salija, K. (2018). Developing Authentic-based Instructional Materials for Writing Skill. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 9(3), 591. https://doi.org/10.17507/jltr.0903.19

Lee, J. (2025). Speaking English with AI or Humans: What Engages EFL Learners More? English Teaching, 80(5), 41–66.

Wahyuni, S., Qamariah, H., Syahputra, M., & Yusuf, Y. Q. (2020). Challenges and solutions to develop critical thinking with the British Parliamentary Debate System in EFL classrooms. International Journal of Language Studies, 14(3), 137–156.

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

Zhang, S., Zhao, X., Zhou, T., & Kim, J. H. (2024). Do you have AI dependency? The roles of academic self-efficacy, academic stress, and performance expectations on problematic AI usage behavior. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 21(1), 34. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-024-00467-0

Downloads

Published

2026-02-26

Issue

Vol. 1 No. 1 (2026): April 2026

Section

Articles

License

Copyright (c) 2026 CyTEd: Journal of Cyber Learning, Teknolinguistics and Educational Games

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

CC Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0)

By submitting their work, Authors agree to license it under the CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 International License.

1. User Permissions

Readers are free to Share (copy/redistribute) and Adapt (remix/build upon) the material, provided they follow these conditions:

2. Required Conditions

  • Attribution (BY): Users must credit the original author and source (the journal) and provide a link to the license.

  • NonCommercial (NC): The work may not be used for primary commercial purposes or monetary gain.

  • ShareAlike (SA): Any derivative work created must be distributed under the same CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

3. Copyright and Publishing

  • Copyright: Remains with the Author(s).

  • Journal Right: The Journal is granted the First Non-Exclusive Publishing Right under the CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

  • Self-Archiving: Authors may re-use or deposit the final published version elsewhere, provided they maintain the original license and link back to the journal.

How to Cite

From Algorithmic Scaffolding to Cognitive Withdrawal: A Three-Phase Classroom Experiment on AI Regulation in EFL Debates. (2026). CyTED: Journal of Cyberlearning, Technolinguistics, & Edu-Games, 1(1), 21-31. https://journal.unilak.ac.id/index.php/cyted/article/view/32042