CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 210Artificial Intelligence in EducationEducation and Critical Thinking DevelopmentArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education

Student Interaction with ChatGPT Can Promote Complex Critical Thinking Skills

Suriano, Rossella, Plebe, Alessio, Acciai, Alessandro, Fabio, Rosa Angela·2025·Learning and Instruction
DOI 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2024.102011
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2024.102011

Cites

55 of 55 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • If learners are guided to use AI responsibly and reflectively, and if educational norms support critical engagement rather than passive surrender, then the practice ceases to be corrupting and can even help learners improve cognitive skills.

    “If learners are guided to use AI responsibly and reflectively, and if educational norms support critical engagement rather than passive surrender, then the practice will cease to be corrupting, it can even be utilized to help learners improve their cognitive skills (Suriano et al. 2025, 5).”

    From Algorithmic Epistemic Outsourcing and Epistemic Corruption (2026) · cites this paper as Suriano et al. 2025

  • Overreliance on AI-enhanced feedback may undermine opportunities for deep learning and critical engagement.

    “Initial studies suggest that, while students may benefit from AI-enhanced feedback, overreliance on these tools may undermine opportunities for deep learning and critical engagement (Kasneci et al., 2023; Suriano et al., 2025; Zawacki-Richter et al., 2019; Zhai et al., 2024).”

    From Participatory Co-Design and Evaluation of a Novel Approach to Generative AI-Integrated Coursework Assessment in Higher Education (2025) · cites this paper as Suriano et al., 2025

  • Recent studies have identified the potential of GenAI tools to activate CT through cognitive scaffolding and metacognitive prompting.

    “Recent studies have identified the potential of GenAI tools to activate CT through cognitive scaffolding and metacognitive prompting [11,13,14].”

    From A Systematic Literature Review on the Pedagogical Implications and Impact of GenAI on Students' Critical Thinking (2026) · cites this paper as [14]

  • The Critical Reasoning Assessment (CRA) offered a multidimensional standardized tool (α = 0.87).

    “The Critical Reasoning Assessment (CRA) further offered a multidimensional standardized tool (α = 0.87) [14,69].”

    From A Systematic Literature Review on the Pedagogical Implications and Impact of GenAI on Students' Critical Thinking (2026) · cites this paper as [14]

  • Suriano et al. reported that depth of interaction with a chatbot was associated with measured gains in CT performance.

    “For example, Suriano et al. [14] reported that depth of interaction with a chatbot was associated with measured gains in CT performance.”

    From A Systematic Literature Review on the Pedagogical Implications and Impact of GenAI on Students' Critical Thinking (2026) · cites this paper as [14]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 56 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Suriano, R., Plebe, A., Acciai, A., & Fabio, R. A.
Affiliations
University of Messina (IT)
Corresponding author
Suriano, Rossella
ORCID
Venue
Learning and Instruction
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2025-02
Volume
95
Pages
102011
ISSN
0959-4752 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.learninstruc.2024.102011
OpenAlex
W4402483923
Cited by
208
References
56
Citations by year
2026: 99 · 2025: 101 · 2024: 8
FWCI
78.21
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
Locations
Learning and Instruction (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Artificial Intelligence in Education
  • Social Sciences › Education › Education and Critical Thinking Development
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Keywords
ChatGPT, AI chatbots in education, critical thinking, student attitudes toward AI, trust in AI, student engagement, AI knowledge, student-AI interaction

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review