Learner perspectives on PIM-supported dilemma-based EFL writing.
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.62819/jel.2026.2328Keywords:
dilemma-based problem-solving writing tasks, EFL writing, learner perceptions, student collaboration, teacher guidanceAbstract
Thai undergraduate EFL learners are increasingly expected to write texts that are not only grammatically accurate but also analytically developed, logically organized, and adequately supported. This article explores learners’ perceptions of PIM-supported dilemma-based EFL writing instruction, with particular attention to dilemma-based problem-solving writing tasks, student collaboration, and teacher guidance. Although previous research has shown that task-based learning, collaborative learning, process-oriented L2 writing pedagogy, and teacher scaffolding can support writing development, less is known about how learners experience an instructional model that integrates these elements within a staged writing process. This article reports the qualitative, process-oriented strand of a broader mixed-methods classroom intervention involving nine Thai undergraduate English majors enrolled in a writing course. Data were drawn from post-questionnaire responses and a group reflection discussion. The findings indicate that learners perceived the instructional process positively. Dilemma-based problem-solving writing tasks encouraged deeper thinking before writing, student collaboration helped learners clarify prompts and expand ideas, and teacher guidance supported planning, organization, revision, and editing. However, several learners still found the transition from collaborative preparation to individual writing challenging, particularly in selecting ideas, organizing support, and composing with confidence. The findings suggest that PIM may be strengthened by adding more explicit transitional scaffolding between collaborative planning and individual composition in EFL writing instruction.
References
Arihasta, D. (2023). Non-English-major undergraduate students’ difficulties in argumentative writing at Mae Fah Luang University, Thailand. LLT Journal: A Journal on Language and Language Teaching, 26(2), 732–748. https://doi.org/10.24071/llt.v26i2.6444
Bean, J. C. (2011). Engaging ideas: The professor’s guide to integrating writing, critical thinking, and active learning in the classroom (2nd ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Chaisuriya, A., & Luengalongkot, P. (2025). Examining academic writing proficiency and self-perception among non-English major students in a Thai regional university. Forum for Linguistic Studies, 7(6), 331–341. https://doi.org/10.30564/fls.v7i6.10044
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). Sage Publications.
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford University Press.
Ghanbari, N., & Salari, M. (2022). Problematizing argumentative writing in an Iranian EFL undergraduate context. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, Article 862400. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.862400
Hyland, K. (2003). Second language writing. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511667251
Laohasawad, N., & Somphong, M. (2025). Writing problems of Thai candidates for academic writing tasks in the IELTS standardized test. LEARN Journal: Language Education and Acquisition Research Network, 18(2), 519–549. https://doi.org/10.70730/OWZX2270
Nunan, D. (2004). Task-based language teaching. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511667336
Piamsai, C. (2020). The effect of scaffolding on non-proficient EFL learners’ performance in an academic writing class. LEARN Journal: Language Education and Acquisition Research Network, 13(2), 288–305.
Storch, N. (2005). Collaborative writing: Product, process, and students’ reflections. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14(3), 153–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2005.05.002
Sundari, H., & Febriyanti, R. H. (2023). Collective scaffolding in virtual collaborative writing: A study during emergency remote teaching in Indonesia. Studies in English Language and Education, 10(1), 16–40. https://doi.org/10.24815/siele.v10i1.25039
Suthipiyapathra, S. (2021). Effects of teacher–student conference on paragraph writing of EFL students in Thailand. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 9(7), 1385–1394. https://doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2021.090705
Thongchalerm, S., & Jarunthawatchai, W. (2020). The impact of genre-based instruction on EFL learners’ writing development. International Journal of Instruction, 13(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2020.1311a
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. In M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman (Eds.). Harvard University Press.
Wang, K., Zhang, L. J., & Cooper, M. (2025). Metacognitive instruction for improving the effectiveness of collaborative writing for EFL learners’ writing development. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 34(2), 661–673. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-024-00886-7
Willis, D., & Willis, J. (2007). Doing task-based teaching. Oxford University Press.
Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, and Allied Disciplines, 17(2), 89–100. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.1976.tb00381.x






