CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 52Artificial Intelligence in EducationEFL/ESL Teaching and LearningEnglish Language Learning and Teaching

How do generative artificial intelligence (AI) tools and large language models (LLMs) influence language learners’ critical thinking in EFL education? A systematic review

Open access
Liu, Jing, Sihes, Ahmad Johari Bin, Lu, Ye·2025·Smart Learning Environments
DOI 10.1186/s40561-025-00406-0
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

As generative artificial intelligence (AI) tools and large language models (LLMs)-powered applications develop rapidly in the era of algorithms, it should be integrated thoughtfully to enhance English as a Foreign Language (EFL) teaching and learning without replacing learners’ critical thinking (CT). This study systematically analyzes the impact of generative AI tools and LLMs on language learners’ CT in EFL education using the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) framework to identify, evaluate, and synthesize relevant studies from 2022 to 2025. A thorough review of 15 selected studies focuses on generative AI tools and LLMs’ dual nature, research methods, main focuses, theory and models, limitations and challenges, and future directions in the field based on Web of Science (WoS), SCOPUS, ERIC, ProQuest, and Google Scholar. The findings identified generative AI tools and LLMs possessed both the potential to nurture and the risk of hindering CT in EFL education. 66.67% of studies reported generative AI tools and LLMs’ positive role in CT, while 33.33% of studies reported its negative role in CT. Furthermore, 3 types of research methods, 3 key themes of research focus, and 4 groups of theoretical perspectives were examined. However, 4 kinds of limitations in this field remain, including research scope, user dependency, generative AI reliability, and pedagogical integration. Future research can focus on assessing long-term effects, broadening research scope, promoting responsible AI use, and refining pedagogical strategies. Finally, Limitations, implications and future direction of this study were discussed.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/s40561-025-00406-0

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Systematic and scoping reviews note that literature on the association between functional LLM-CB use and critical thinking skills remains inconclusive.

    “Systematic and scoping reviews note that literature on the association between functional LLM-CB use and critical thinking skills remains inconclusive90–92.”

    From A scoping review on the mental health harms of LLM-based chatbots (2026) · cites this paper as [90]

    The section ‘Do generative AI tools and LLMs kill or nurture critical thinking in EFL education?’ (page unavailable) reports both benefits and risks for critical thinking, with outcomes depending on how the tools are used. That supports a mixed-evidence reading, but the review concerns EFL learners and does not specifically assess the association between functional LLM-chatbot use and critical-thinking skills across a broader population. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 57 · Cited by 52

Research works printed but not linked: 44

  1. Al Roomy, M. A. (2022). Investigating the effects of critical reading skills on students' reading comprehension. Arab World English Journal, 13(1), 366-381. https:// doi. org/ 10. 24093/ awej/ vol13 no1. · DOI
  2. Alsaleh, N. J. (2020). Teaching critical thinking skills: Literature review. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology- TOJET, 19(1), 21-39.
  3. Amyatun, R. L., & Kholis, A. (2023). Can artificial intelligence (AI) like QuillBot AI assist students' writing skills? Assisting learning to write texts using AI. ELE Reviews: English Language Education Reviews, 3(2), 135-154. https:// doi. org/ 10. 22515/ elere views. v3i2. 7533 · DOI
  4. Arkadiy, F. (2021). Features of critical thinking of individual entrepreneurs with different levels of self-regulation. Interna- tional Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education, 9(2), 253-264. https:// doi. org/ 10. 23947/ 2334-8496-2021-9-2-253-264 · DOI
  5. Avsheniuk, N., Lutsenko, O., Svyrydiuk, T., & Seminikhyna, N. (2024). Empowering language learners' critical thinking: Evaluating ChatGPT's role in English course implementation. Arab World English Journal. https:// doi. org/ 10. 24093/ awej/ chatg pt. 14 · DOI · Paper page
  6. Aydın, Ö., & Karaarslan, E. (2023). Is ChatGPT leading generative AI? What is beyond expectations? Academic Platform Journal of Engineering and Smart Systems, 11(3), 118-134. https:// doi. org/ 10. 21541/ apjess. 12937 02 · DOI
  7. Azaria, A. (2023). Chatgpt: More human-like than computer-like, but not necessarily in a good way. In 2023 IEEE 35th International Conference on Tools with Artificial Intelligence (ICTAI).
  8. Banh, L., & Strobel, G. (2023). Generative artificial intelligence. Electronic Markets, 33(1), 63.
  9. Barker, T. H., Stone, J. C., Sears, K., Klugar, M., Leonardi-Bee, J., Tufanaru, C., Aromataris, E., & Munn, Z. (2023). Revising the JBI quantitative critical appraisal tools to improve their applicability: An overview of methods and the development process. JBI Evidence Synthesis, 21(3), 478-493. https:// doi. org/ 10. 11124/ jbies-22-00125 · DOI · Paper page
  10. Betaubun, M., Laila Rokhmah, D. E., & Budiasto, J. (2023). Personalized pathways to proficiency: Exploring the synergy of adaptive learning and artificial intelligence in English language learning. Technium. https:// doi. org/ 10. 47577/ techn ium. v17i. 10047 · DOI
  11. Cao, Y., Li, S., Liu, Y., Yan, Z., Dai, Y., Yu, P. S., & Sun, L. (2023). A comprehensive survey of ai-generated content (aigc): A his- tory of generative ai from gan to chatgpt. arXiv preprint arXiv: 2303.04226. · arXiv
  12. Chen, C., & Gong, Y. (2025). The role of AI-assisted learning in academic writing: A mixed-methods study on Chinese as a second language students. Education Sciences, 15(2), 141.
  13. Crawford, J., Kelder, J.-A., & Wilson, G. (2024). Quality assessment tool for theory-based and literature review studies (QATTL): Development and validation of a critical appraisal tool. Quality and Quantity. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s11135-024-02003-8 · DOI
  14. Darmawansah, D., Rachman, D., Febiyani, F., & Hwang, G.-J. (2024). ChatGPT-supported collaborative argumentation: Integrating collaboration script and argument mapping to enhance EFL students' argumentation skills. Education and Information Technologies. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s10639-024-12986-4 · DOI
  15. Ennis, R. H. (2018). Critical thinking across the curriculum: A vision. Topoi, 37(1), 165-184. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s11245-016-9401-4 · DOI
  16. Evans, C., Hassanein, Z. M., Bains, M., Bennett, C., Bjerrum, M., Edgley, A., Edwards, D., Porritt, K., & Salmond, S. (2025). Addressing equity, diversity, and inclusion in JBI qualitative systematic reviews: A methodological scoping review. JBI Evidence Synthesis, 23(3), 454-479. https:// doi. org/ 10. 11124/ jbies-24-00025 · DOI
  17. Fitria, T. N. (2023). Artificial intelligence (AI) technology in OpenAI ChatGPT application: A review of ChatGPT in writing English essay. ELT Forum: Journal of English Language Teaching. https:// doi. org/ 10. 15294/ elt. v12i1. 64069 · DOI · Paper page
  18. Girdharry, K., & Khachatryan, D. (2023). Meaningful writing in the age of generative artificial intelligence. Double Helix: A Journal of Critical Thinking and Writing. https:// doi. org/ 10. 37514/ DBH-J. 2023. 11.1. 04 · DOI
  19. Hading, E. F., Rustan, D. R. H. P., & Ruing, F. H. (2024). Efl students' perceptions on the integration of AI in fostering critical thinking skills. GLENS: Global English Insights Journal. https:// doi. org/ 10. 61220/ glens. v2i1. 466 · DOI · Paper page
  20. Hapsari, I. P., & Wu, T.-T. (2022). AI chatbots learning model in English speaking skill: Alleviating speaking anxiety, boosting enjoyment, and fostering critical thinking. In International conference on innovative technologies and learning.
  21. Hart, C., Da Costa, C., D'Souza, D., Kimpton, A., & Ljbusic, J. (2021). Exploring higher education students' critical thinking skills through content analysis. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 41, Article 100877. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. tsc. 2021. 100877 · DOI
  22. Hidayat, M. T. (2024). Effectiveness of AI-based personalised reading platforms in enhancing reading comprehension. Journal of Learning for Development, 11(1), 115-125. https:// doi. org/ 10. 56059/ jl4d. v11i1. 955 · DOI
  23. Jegede, O. O. (2024). Artificial intelligence and English language learning: Exploring the roles of AI-driven tools in per- sonalizing learning and providing instant feedback. Universal Library of Languages and Literatures. https:// doi. org/ 10. 70315/ uloap. ullli. 2024. 01020 02 · DOI
  24. Jinming, D., & Daniel, B. K. (2024). A systematic review of AI-powered chatbots in EFL speaking practice: Transforming language education. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 100230.
  25. Jocuns, K. F. (2021). Dialogic teaching as a way to promote students' English language use in EFL classroom. PASAA, 62(1), 173-203. https:// doi. org/ 10. 58837/ chula. pasaa. 62.1.7 · DOI
  26. Joseph, S. (2023). Large language model-based tools in language teaching to develop critical thinking and sustain- able cognitive structures. Rupkatha Journal on Interdisciplinary Studies in Humanities. https:// doi. org/ 10. 21659/ rupka tha. v15n4. 13 · DOI
  27. Kennedy, T. J., spsampsps Sundberg, C. W. (2020). 21st century skills. In Science education in theory and practice: An introductory guide to learning theory (pp. 479-496). Springer. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ 978-3-030-43620-9_ 32 · DOI
  28. Khan, W. M. (2024). Analyzing the AI tools'impact on critical thinking in bs English students at Pakistani universities. Journal of Applied Linguistics and TESOL (JALT), 7(4), 1232-1238.
  29. Kim, J., Yu, S., Detrick, R., & Li, N. (2025). Exploring students' perspectives on generative AI-assisted academic writing. Education and Information Technologies, 30(1), 1265-1300. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s10639-024-12878-7 · DOI · Paper page
  30. Kuhn, D. (2018). A role for reasoning in a dialogic approach to critical thinking. Topoi, 37(1), 121-128. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s11245-016-9373-4 · DOI
  31. Kuloğlu, A., & Karabekmez, V. (2022). The relationship between 21st-century teacher skills and critical thinking skills of classroom teacher. International Journal of Psychology and Educational Studies, 9(1), 91-101. https:// doi. org/ 10. 52380/ ijpes. 2022.9. 1. 551 · DOI
  32. Lee, Y. J., & Davis, R. O. (2024). A case study of implementing generative AI in university's general English courses. Contemporary Educational Technology. https:// doi. org/ 10. 30935/ cedte ch/ 15218 · DOI
  33. Mogea, T. (2022). Students' critical thinking ability in English teaching and learning. Jurnal Pendidikan Dan Sastra Ing- gris, 2(3), 157-171.
  34. Nikolinakos, N. T. (2023). EU policy and legal framework for Artificial intelligence. Springer. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ 978-3-031-27953-9 · DOI
  35. Nurhidayat, E., Mujiyanto, J., Yuliasri, I., & Hartono, R. (2024). Technology integration and teachers' competency in the development of 21st-century learning in EFL classroom. Journal of Education and Learning (EduLearn), 18(2), 342-349. https:// doi. org/ 10. 11591/ edule arn. v18i2. 21069 · DOI
  36. Octavio, M. M., Argüello, M. V. G., & Pujolà, J.-T. (2024). ChatGPT as an AI L2 teaching support: A case study of an EFL teacher. Technology in Language Teaching & Learning, 6(1), 1142-1142. https:// doi. org/ 10. 29140/ tltl. v6n1. 1142 · DOI
  37. Parasuraman, B. (2024). Introduction to Generative AI and Large Language Models (LLMs). In Mastering Spring AI: The Java Developer's Guide for Large Language Models and Generative AI (pp. 1-34). Springer. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ 979-8-8688-1001-5_1 · DOI
  38. Rizkiani, S., Maulana, A., Resmini, S., & Satriani, I. (2024). Examining the use of AI tools in academic writing: Effects on the critical thinking skills of EFL learners. JELA (Journal of English Language Teaching, Literature and Applied Linguistics), 6(2), 111-121.
  39. Srinivasa, K., Kurni, M., & Saritha, K. (2022). Harnessing the Power of AI to Education. In Learning, teaching, and assess- ment methods for contemporary learners: pedagogy for the digital generation (pp. 311-342). Springer.
  40. Stern, C., Lizarondo, L., Carrier, J., Godfrey, C., Rieger, K., Salmond, S., Apostolo, J., Kirkpatrick, P., & Loveday, H. (2020). Methodological guidance for the conduct of mixed methods systematic reviews. JBI Evidence Synthesis, 18(10), 2108-2118. https:// doi. org/ 10. 11124/ jbisr ir-d-19-00169 · DOI
  41. Waziana, W., Andewi, W., Hastomo, T., & Hasbi, M. (2024). Students' perceptions about the impact of AI chatbots on their vocabulary and grammar in EFL writing. Register Journal, 17(2), 352-382.
  42. Yamin, M., Setiawan, S., Anam, S. U., & Retnaningdyah, P. (2022). The teachers' perceptions about critical thinking skills in English language teaching methodologies. English Review: Journal of English Education, 10(2), 655-666. https:// doi. org/ 10. 25134/ erjee. v10i2. 6302 · DOI
  43. Yilin, W., Jishuang, L., Yunus, M. M., & Rafiq, K. R. M. (2023). Chances and challenges of EFL teaching powered by ChatGPT on developing the students' critical thinking. Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 13(12), 3922-3935.
  44. Zhang, M., Wang, Y., & Shang, Q. (2024). Using AI chatbots to improve university EFL students' speech scripts' writing quality and critical thinking skills Proceedings of the International CALL Research Conference, https:// doi. org/ 10. 29140/ 97806 48184 485-52. · DOI

Authors
Liu, J., Sihes, A. J. B., & Lu, Y.
Affiliations
University of Technology Malaysia (MY)
Corresponding author
Liu, Jing
ORCID
Venue
Smart Learning Environments
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2025-08-04
Volume
12
Issue
1
ISSN
2196-7091 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1186/s40561-025-00406-0
OpenAlex
W4412931693
Cited by
52
References
57
Citations by year
2026: 47 · 2025: 5
FWCI
8.05
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Smart Learning Environments (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
Beijing Normal University
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Artificial Intelligence in Education
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › English Language Learning and Teaching
Keywords
generative AI, large language models, critical thinking, English as a foreign language, artificial intelligence in language teaching, AI dependency, responsible AI use, pedagogical integration

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