The GenAI-Prompting Learning Model (GPLM): Developing and Testing a Structured Prompting Framework to Support Pre-service PBSI Teachers’ Metacognitive Skills

Lisdwiana Kurniati; Amy  Sabila; Roro Dwi  Astuti

doi:10.36312/jolls.v6i3.5041

Authors

Lisdwiana Kurniati Universitas Muhammadiyah Pringsewu Lampung
Amy Sabila Universitas Muhammadiyah Pringsewu Lampung
Roro Dwi Astuti Universitas Muhammadiyah Pringsewu Lampung

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.36312/jolls.v6i3.5041

Keywords:

GenAI-Prompting, Instructional design, Metacognitive skills, Pre-service language teacher education

Abstract

Pre-service Indonesian Language Education (Pendidikan Bahasa dan Sastra Indonesia/PBSI) teachers often struggle to translate instructional-design theory into contextually grounded, creative lesson designs. Building on evidence of a broader theory-practice gap in Indonesian pre-service language teacher education, this study examined whether this gap is compounded by underdeveloped metacognitive regulation (planning, monitoring, evaluating) among fourth-semester PBSI students enrolled in the Indonesian Language and Literature Learning Studies course at Universitas Muhammadiyah Pringsewu (UMPRI). The study aimed to develop, validate, and empirically test the GenAI-Prompting Learning Model (GPLM), a four-level structured prompting framework (Exploratory, Analytical, Synthetic, and Evaluative Prompting) designed to support students' metacognitive regulation during instructional-design tasks. An embedded mixed-methods Research and Development (R&D) design was used, operationalized through the five ADDIE stages (Analyze, Design, Develop, Implement, Evaluate); qualitative data were nested within a pre-experimental one-group pretest-posttest quantitative design and used to explain the numerical findings. The GPLM was reviewed by three expert validators (two language-pedagogy specialists and one educational-technology specialist) and implemented with 41 fourth-semester PBSI students (28 female, 13 male) over a 14-session/14-week intervention. Instruments comprised the Metacognitive Skills Test (MST), the Instructional Design Quality Rubric (IDQR), a 15-item GPLM Practicality Questionnaire, observation sheets, digital prompting journals, and semi-structured interviews with 15 purposively selected students. Content validity, calculated with Lawshe's (1975) Content Validity Ratio across three validators, reached 0.99; because CVR critical values are conventionally tabulated for panels of five or more raters, this result is reported with the underlying calculation and interpreted as indicative rather than definitive evidence of content validity. Thematic analysis of interviews and journals identified three explanatory themes-externalization of internal thought, iterative refinement through dialogic interaction, and emerging epistemic agency. The findings showed that the GPLM is a well-received, promising instructional tool associated with improved metacognitive and instructional-design scores, rather than as proof of a causal "acceleration" effect.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biographies

Lisdwiana Kurniati, Universitas Muhammadiyah Pringsewu Lampung

Indonesian Language and Literature Education, Universitas Muhammadiyah Pringsewu (UMPRI), Jln. KH. Ahmad Dahlan No.112, Pringsewu Utara, Pringsewu, Lampung, Indonesia
Amy Sabila, Universitas Muhammadiyah Pringsewu Lampung

Indonesian Language and Literature Education, Universitas Muhammadiyah Pringsewu (UMPRI) Jln. KH. Ahmad Dahlan No.112, Pringsewu Utara, Pringsewu, Lampung, Indonesia
Roro Dwi Astuti, Universitas Muhammadiyah Pringsewu Lampung

Indonesian Language and Literature Education, Universitas Muhammadiyah Pringsewu (UMPRI)

Jln. KH. Ahmad Dahlan No.112, Pringsewu Utara, Pringsewu, Lampung, Indonesia

References

Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (Eds.). (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom's educational objectives. Longman.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W. H. Freeman.

Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The psychology of written composition. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Branch, R. M. (2009). Instructional design: The ADDIE approach. Springer.

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

Brown, A. L. (1987). Metacognition, executive control, self-regulation, and other more mysterious mechanisms. In F. E. Weinert & R. H. Kluwe (Eds.), Metacognition, motivation, and understanding (pp. 65-116). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. (1963). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Rand McNally.

Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications.

Darwin, Rusdin, D., Mukminatien, N., Suryati, N., Laksmi, E. D., & Marzuki. (2024). Critical thinking in the AI era: An exploration of EFL students' perceptions, benefits, and limitations. Cogent Education, 11(1), 2290342. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2023.2290342

Emig, J. (1977). Writing as a mode of learning. College Composition and Communication, 28(2), 122-128. https://doi.org/10.2307/356095

Ericsson, K. A., Krampe, R. T., & Tesch-Romer, C. (1993). The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance. Psychological Review, 100(3), 363-406. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.100.3.363

Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34(10), 906-911. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.34.10.906

Flower, L., & Hayes, J. R. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition and Communication, 32(4), 365-387. https://doi.org/10.2307/356600

Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (2012). How to design and evaluate research in education (8th ed.). McGraw-Hill.

Gupta, A., & Bhardwaj, A. (2023). Prompt engineering for generative AI in educational contexts: Challenges and opportunities. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 26(3), 112-127.

Hake, R. R. (1999). Analyzing change/gain scores. American Educational Research Association, Division D. https://www.physics.indiana.edu/~sdi/AnalyzingChange-Gain.pdf

Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81-112. https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487

Huang, J., Saleh, S., & Liu, Y. (2022). A review on artificial intelligence in education: Chatbots and their applications, benefits and challenges. Sciences of Education, 11(2), 78-94.

Kalyuga, S., Ayres, P., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2003). The expertise reversal effect. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 23-31. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3801_4

King, A. (1991). Effects of training in strategic questioning on children's problem-solving performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(3), 307-317. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.83.3.307

Kofinas, A. (2025). The impact of generative AI on academic integrity of authentic assessments within a higher education context. British Journal of Educational Technology. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13585

Lawshe, C. H. (1975). A quantitative approach to content validity. Personnel Psychology, 28(4), 563-575. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1975.tb01393.x

Luckin, R., Holmes, W., Griffiths, M., & Forcier, L. B. (2016). Intelligence unleashed: An argument for AI in education. Pearson Education.

Lutfi, M. (2023). Metacognitive competencies in higher education: A systematic review of Indonesian-language teacher education programs. Jurnal Pendidikan Bahasa dan Sastra, 23(1), 45-62. https://doi.org/10.17509/bs_jpbsp.v23i1.56781

Sallam, M., Salim, N. A., Barakat, M., & Al-Tammemi, A. B. (2024). ChatGPT applications in medical, dental, pharmacy, and public health education: A descriptive study highlighting the advantages and limitations. Narra J, 3(1), e103. https://doi.org/10.52225/narra.v3i1.103

Schraw, G., & Dennison, R. S. (1994). Assessing metacognitive awareness. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19(4), 460-475. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1994.1033

Selwyn, N. (2016). Is technology good for education? Polity Press.

Setiawan, A., & Suwatno, S. (2024). Theory-practice gap in pre-service language teacher education: Evidence from Indonesian higher education. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 13(3), 611-625. https://doi.org/10.17509/ijal.v13i3.62014

Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1-22. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.57.1.j463w79r56455411

Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12(2), 257-285. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1202_4

Tankelevitch, L., Kewenig, V., Simkute, A., Scott, A. E., Sarkar, A., Sellen, A., & Rintel, S. (2024). The metacognitive demands and opportunities of generative AI. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '24) (pp. 1-24). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3613904.3642902

Veenman, M. V. J., Van Hout-Wolters, B. H. A. M., & Afflerbach, P. (2006). Metacognition and learning: Conceptual and methodological considerations. Metacognition and Learning, 1(1), 3-14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-006-6893-0

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.

Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective. In M. Boekaerts, P. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 13-39). Academic Press.

Zimmerman, B. J., & Schunk, D. H. (Eds.). (2019). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: Theoretical perspectives (3rd ed.). Routledge.