SCAFFOLD OR SHORTCUT? THE CHOICE OF AI TOOLS AS A PEDAGOGICAL ACT
TL;DR
AI should be understood as a mediating instrument, not as a more capable peer — a role that remains reserved for the teacher, who must mediate the very choice of the tool.
Abstract
This article examines the relationship between undergraduate students’ choice of generative artificial intelligence (AI) tools and the cognitive operations mobilized in scientific research, drawing on Vygotsky’s cultural-historical theory and the concept of the Zone of Proximal Development. It is based on an exploratory diagnostic study, with a mixed-methods approach, conducted with 166 undergraduate students at the Federal University of Mato Grosso do Sul, through a questionnaire with closed questions and open fields, treated by descriptive statistics and qualitative reading. The results indicate intensive use of AI — 72.3% of respondents use these tools weekly or daily — yet concentrated in general-purpose generative systems: among those who use AI in any research phase, 95.6% rely exclusively on generative or language-revision systems, with residual presence (2.4%) of AI-layered scientific databases. The open questions reveal concerns about reliability, plagiarism, impoverishment of one’s own learning, and the lack of institutional guidelines. The mismatch between intensity of use and functional adequacy of the tool is discussed as evidence of an unmediated zone of development, in which students build inadequate scaffolds on their own. The article concludes that AI should be understood as a mediating instrument, not as a more capable peer — a role that remains reserved for the teacher, who must mediate the very choice of the tool. An analytical mediation matrix is proposed to guide this teaching practice.