CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 17Artificial Intelligence in EducationEducation and Critical Thinking DevelopmentArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education

Evaluation of Generative AI Use to Foster Critical Thinking in Higher Education

Oliva-Córdova, Luis Magdiel, Álvarez-Icaza, Inés, George-Reyes, Carlos Enrique·2025·IEEE Revista Iberoamericana de Tecnologias del Aprendizaje
DOI 10.1109/rita.2025.3597848
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Critical thinking is a key competency in higher education, particularly in digital environments that demand analysis, judgment, and informed decision-making. Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) represents an emerging opportunity to enhance complex cognitive skills in educational settings. A quasi-experimental research design with a mixed-methods approach was employed and applied to a sample of university students aiming to address the research question: What is the impact of using GenAI tools on the development of critical thinking in university students? The educational intervention consisted of structured workshops that incorporated GenAI tools into activities aimed at developing six dimensions of critical thinking: remembering, understanding, applying, analyzing, evaluating, and creating. Results showed significant improvements in applying (p =.002), analyzing (p =.0008), and evaluating (p =.003), all associated with higher-order thinking skills. Three dimensions -remembering, understanding, and creating- showed statistically significant changes. However, students’ perception showed a notable increase in the value of GenAI use. Additionally, participants highlighted the usefulness of GenAI for generating ideas, decision making, and promoting deeper reflections. The study concludes that the intentional integration of GenAI technologies, when aligned with clear educational goals, can produce a meaningful and positive impact on the development of critical thinking in university contexts. These findings offer empirical support for designing innovative, ethically grounded learning experiences that incorporate GenAI to strengthen cognitive development in higher education.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/rita.2025.3597848

Cites

29 of 29 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Oliva-Córdova, L. M., Álvarez-Icaza, I., & George-Reyes, C. E.
Affiliations
  • Tecnológico de Monterrey (MX)
  • Institute for the Future of Education, Tecnológico de Monterrey, Mexico City, Mexico
ORCID
Venue
IEEE Revista Iberoamericana de Tecnologias del Aprendizaje
Publisher
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE)
Published
2025
Volume
20
Pages
237-243
ISSN
  • 1932-8540 (ISSN-L)
  • 2374-0132
DOI
10.1109/rita.2025.3597848
OpenAlex
W4413155743
Cited by
17
References
29
Citations by year
2026: 14 · 2025: 3
FWCI
17.49
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
Locations
IEEE Revista Iberoamericana de Tecnologias del Aprendizaje (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Tecnológico de Monterrey through the “Challenge-Based Research Funding Program 2023”, entitled “Complex Thinking Education for All (CTE4A): A Digital Hub and School for Lifelong Learners” (IJXT070-23EG99001)
  • Writing Laboratory, Institute for the Future of Education, Tecnológico de Monterrey, México
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
generative AI, critical thinking, higher education, university students, higher-order thinking skills, Bloom's taxonomy, AI integration in education, student perceptions, AI workshops, cognitive development

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