CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 30Artificial Intelligence in EducationEducation and Critical Thinking DevelopmentArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education

Enhancing critical thinking skills in ChatGPT-human interaction: a scoping review

Open access
Raitskaya, Lilia, Tikhonova, Elena·2025·Journal of Language and Education
DOI 10.17323/jle.2025.27387
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Introduction: The rapid integration of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) technologies, including ChatGPT, into educational environments has introduced both opportunities and challenges for learners and educators. While GenAI can support advanced learning practices, it also raises concerns about critical engagement and the accuracy of generated content. Previous systematic reviews have explored GenAI’s relationship with critical thinking (CT) and self-regulated learning, but a focused synthesis of recent empirical evidence on GenAI’s impact on university students’ CT skills remains lacking. Method: This scoping review followed the PRISMA-ScR guidelines and applied the Arksey and O’Malley framework alongside the Population – Concept – Context (PCC) model. Studies were identified via the Scopus database, using inclusion criteria limited to the years 2024–2025, English language, and the Social Sciences subject area. Thirty eligible empirical studies were analysed and visualised using VOSviewer to identify thematic clusters and categories in the literature. Results: The reviewed studies were grouped into seventeen thematic clusters by the VOSviewer and then manually synthesized into six categories based on semantic interpretation: cognitive and metacognitive development, pedagogical innovation and learning design, academic writing and language learning, AI literacy and learner perception, evaluation and assessment technologies, global and ethical dimensions of GenAI use. The findings were analysed as (1) direct enhancement of CT, (2) metacognitive and reflective gains, (3) contextual factors shaping CT, (4) risks of cognitive offloading, and (5) instructional strategies mediating AI’s effect. 21 publications showed predominantly positive impact of GenAI on CT (idea generation, conceptual understanding, construction of arguments, literature review, academic writing, etc.) whereas reported found mixed impact. Conclusion: The review concludes that GenAI holds substantial potential to support CT development, particularly when pedagogically integrated to promote active reasoning, metacognitive monitoring, and critical autonomy. However, the evidence base is still emerging and is limited by its short temporal scope, narrow database coverage, and reliance on self-reported data. Future research should focus on long-term effects, discipline-specific instructional models, and robust theoretical frameworks linking AI use to cognitive outcomes.

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 · 10.17323/jle.2025.27387

Cites

25 of 25 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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?

  • Routine delegation of cognitive tasks to AI systems may foster cognitive offloading, reducing sustained analytical engagement and weakening metacognitive monitoring processes.

    “Several studies argue that the routine delegation of cognitive tasks to AI systems may foster cognitive offloading, reducing sustained analytical engagement and weakening metacognitive monitoring processes (Raitskaya and Tikhonova, 2025;Schorr et al., 2026).”

    From Between cognitive offloading and critical autonomy: A systematic review of the epistemic implications of generative AI in higher education. (2026) · cites this paper as Raitskaya and Tikhonova, 2025

    The “Risks of Over-Reliance and Cognitive Offloading” section describes students delegating analytical tasks to AI and reports that habitual reliance can diminish active engagement. The review also describes accepting AI output without sufficient scrutiny, but it does not directly establish that cognitive offloading weakens metacognitive monitoring processes. Its discussion concerns students’ use of generative AI, rather than AI systems generally. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Existing studies frequently examine isolated dimensions of AI use, including academic integrity, technology acceptance, assessment practices, or learning outcomes, while fewer investigations integrate epistemic trust, cognitive offloading, critical thinking, AI literacy, and educational governance within a unified analytical perspective.

    “Existing studies frequently examine isolated dimensions of AI use, including academic integrity, technology acceptance, assessment practices, or learning outcomes, while fewer investigations integrate epistemic trust, cognitive offloading, critical thinking, AI literacy, and educational governance within a unified analytical perspective (Raitskaya and Tikhonova, 2025;Susena et al., 2026).”

    From Between cognitive offloading and critical autonomy: A systematic review of the epistemic implications of generative AI in higher education. (2026) · cites this paper as Raitskaya and Tikhonova, 2025

    Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • This conditional interpretation is consistent with previous reviews emphasizing the importance of instructional scaffolding, active interrogation of AI outputs, and explicit verification practices.

    “This conditional interpretation is consistent with previous reviews emphasizing the importance of instructional scaffolding, active interrogation of AI outputs, and explicit verification practices (Li et al., 2026;Raitskaya and Tikhonova, 2025;Tomaszewski, 2025).”

    From Between cognitive offloading and critical autonomy: A systematic review of the epistemic implications of generative AI in higher education. (2026) · cites this paper as Raitskaya and Tikhonova, 2025

  • It extends existing concerns about AI dependency by identifying the specific epistemic operations that may be displaced when plausible AI-generated outputs are accepted without evidentiary scrutiny.

    “It extends existing concerns about AI dependency by identifying the specific epistemic operations that may be displaced when plausible AI-generated outputs are accepted without evidentiary scrutiny (Izquierdo-Condoy et al., 2025;Raitskaya and Tikhonova, 2025).”

    From Between cognitive offloading and critical autonomy: A systematic review of the epistemic implications of generative AI in higher education. (2026) · cites this paper as Raitskaya and Tikhonova, 2025

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 33

  1. Al-Mamary, Y.H., & Abubakar, A.A. (2025). Empowering ChatGPT adoption in higher education: A comprehensive analysis of university students' intention to adopt artificial intelligence using self-determination and technology-to-performance chain theories. The Internet and Higher Education, 66, Article 101015. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2025.101015 · DOI
  2. Arksey, H., & O'Malley, L. (2005). Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(1), 19-32. https://doi.org/101080/1364557032000119616
  3. Babin, J.I., Raber, H., & Mattingly II, T.J. (2024). Prompt pattern engineering for test question mapping using ChatGPT: a cross-sec- tional study. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 88, Article 101266. https://doi.org/10/1016/j.ajpe.2024.101116
  4. Bertocchi, F. M., De Oliveira, A. C., Lucchetti, G., & Lucchetti, A.L.G. (2022). Smartphone use, digital addiction and physical and mental health in community-dwelling older adults: A population-based survey. Journal of Medical Systems, 46(8), 53. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s10916-022-01839-7 · DOI
  5. Chaparro-Banegas, N., Alicia, M.-T., & Roig-Tierno, N. (2024). Challenging critical thinking in education: new paradigms of arti- ficial intelligence. Cogent Education, 11(1), Article 2437899. https://doi.org/10.59429/esp.v9i11.3141 · DOI
  6. Chen, B., Zhang, Z., Langere, N., & Zhu, S. (2025). Unleashing the potential of prompt engineering for large language models. Patterns, Article 101260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.patter.2025.101260 · DOI
  7. Darwin, Rusdin, D., Mukminatien, N., Suryati, N., Laksmi, E.D., & Marzuki (2024). Critical thinking in the AI era: An exploration of EFLbstudents' perceptions, benefits, and limitations. Cogent Education, 11(1), Article 2290342. https://doi.org/10.1080/2 331186X.2023.2290342 · DOI
  8. Deng, R., Jiang, M., Yu, X., Lu, Y., & Liu, S. (2025). Does ChatGPT enhance student learning? A systematic review and meta-anal- ysis of experimental studies. Computers & Education, 227, Article 105224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2024.105224 · DOI · Paper page
  9. Emran, A.Q.M., Aldallal, A., & Nadheer, A. (2024). Investigating the impact of ChatGPT on enhancing university students' critical thinking skills. In Hamdan, A., & Harraf, A. (Eds.), Business development via AI and digitalization (vol. 1, pp. 567-574). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-62102-4_47 · DOI
  10. Fadillah, M.A., Usmeldi, U., & Asrizal, A. The role of ChatGPT and higher-order thinking skills as predictors of physics inquiry. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 23(6), 1178-1192. https://doi.org/10.33225/jbse/24.23.1178 · DOI
  11. Fakour, H., & Imani, M. (2025). Socratic wisdom in the age of AI: a comparative study of ChatGPT and human tutors in enhanc- ing critical thinking skills. Frontiers in Education. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2025.1528603 · DOI
  12. George-Reyes, C.E., Vilhunen, E., Avello-Martinez, R., & Lopez-Caudana, E. (2025). Developing scientific entrepreneurship and complex thinking skills; creating narrative scripts using ChatGPT. Frontiers in Education, 9, Article 1378564. https://doi. org/10.3389/feduc.2024.1378564 · DOI
  13. Ivakhnenko, E. N., Nikolskiy, V. S. (2023). ChatGPT in higher education and science: A threat or a valuable resource? Higher Education in Russia, 32(4), 9-22. https://doi.org/10.31992/0869-3617-2023-32-4-9-22 · DOI
  14. Jiang, T., Sun, Z., Fu, S., & Lv, Y. (2024). Human-AI interaction research agenda: A user-centered perspective. Data and Informa- tion Management, 8, Article 1000078. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dim.2024.100078 · DOI
  15. Lijie, H., Yusoff, S.M., & Marzaini, A.F.M. (2025). Influence of AI-driven educational tools on critical thinking dispositions among university students in Malaysia: A study of key factors and correlations. Educational and Information Technologies, 30, 8029- 8053. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-13150-8 · DOI
  16. Liu, Q., & Tu, C.C. (2024). Improving critical thinking through AI-supported socio-scientific issues instruction. Journal of Logistics, Informatics and Service Science, 11(3), 52-65. https://doi.org/10.33168/JLISS.2024.0304 · DOI
  17. Octaberlina, L.R., Muslimin, A.I., Chamidah, D., Surur, M., & Mustikawan, A. (2024). Exploring the impact of AI threats on originality and critical thinking in academic writing. Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology, 8(6), 8805-8814. https://doi. org/10.55214/25768484.v8i6.3878 · DOI
  18. Pan, Z., Moore, O.A., Papadimitriou, A., & Zhu, J. (2025). AI literacy and trust: a multi-method study of Human-GAI team col- laboration. Computers in Human Behavior: Artificial Humans, 4, Article 100162. https://doi.org/10.106/j.chbah.2025.100162
  19. Panit, N.M. (2024). Can critical thinking and AI work together? Observations of science, mathematics, and language instruc- tors. Environment and Social Psychology, 9(11), Article 3141. https://doi.org/10.59429/esp.v9i11.3141 · DOI
  20. Promma, W., Imjai, N., Usman, B., & Aujirapongpan, S. (2025). The influence of AI literacy on complex problem-solving skills through systematic thinking skills and intuition thinking skills: An empirical study in Thai gen Z accounting students. Artifi- cial Intelligence, 8, Article 100382. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2025.100382 · DOI
  21. Raitskaya, L., & Lambovska, M. (2024). Prospects for ChatGPT application in higher education: A scoping review of international research. Integration of Education, 28(1), 10-21. https://doi.org/10.15507/1991-9468.114.028.202401.010-021 · DOI
  22. Royer, C. (2024). Outsourcing humanity? ChatGPT, critical thinking, and the crisis in higher education. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 43, 479-497. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11217-024-09946-3 · DOI
  23. Santamaria-Velasco, J., Nunez-Naranjo, A., & Morales-Urrutia, X. (2025). Critical thinking and AI: Enhancing history teaching through ChatGPT simulations. Internation Journal of Innovative Research and Scientific Studies, 8(1), 564-575. https://doi. org/10.53894/ijirss.v8i1.4403 · DOI
  24. Shen, X., & Teng, M.F. (2024). Three-wave cross-lagged model on the correlations between critical thinking skills, self-directed learning competency and AI-assisted writing. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 52, Article 101524. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. tsc.2024.101524 · DOI
  25. Steele, J.L. (2023). To GPT or not GPT? Empowering our students to learn with AI. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 5, 100160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2023.100160 · DOI · Paper page
  26. Suratmi, S., & Sopandi, W. (2022). Knowledge, skills, and attitudes of teachers in training critical thinking of elementary school students. Journal of Education and Learning (EduLearn), 16(3), 291-298. https:// doi. org/ 10. 11591/ edule arn.v16i3. 20493 · DOI · Paper page
  27. Tang, T., Sha, J., Zhao, Y., Wang, S., Wang, Z., & Shen, S. (2024). Unveiling the efficacy of ChatGPT in evaluating critical thinking skills through peer feedback analysis: Leveraging existing classification criteria. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 52, Article 101607. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2024.101607 · DOI
  28. Tikhonova E., & Raitskaya L. (2023). ChatGPT: Where Is a silver lining? Exploring the realm of GPT and large language mod- els. Journal of Language and Education, 9(3), 5-11. https://doi.org/10.17323/jle.2023.18119 · DOI
  29. van Rensburg, J.J. (2024). Artificial human thinking: ChatGPT's capacity to be a model for critical thinking when prompted with problembased writing activities. Discover Education, 3(1), 42. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44217-024-00113-x · DOI
  30. Wong, R. S.-Y. (2024). ChatGPT in medical education: promoting learning or killing critical thinking? Education in Medicine Jour- nal, 16(2), 177-183. https://doi.org/10.21315/eimj2024.16.2.13 · DOI
  31. Xiao, X., Li, Y., He, X., Fang, J., Yan, Z., & Xie, C. (2025). An assessment framework of higher-order thinking skills based on fine-tuned large language models. Expert Systems with Applications, 272, Article 126531. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2025.126531 · DOI
  32. | Editorial Xu, J., & Liu, Q. (2025). Uncurtaining windows of motivation, enjoyment, critical thinking, and autonomy in AI-integrated educa- tion: Duolingo Vs. ChatGPT. Learning and Motivation, 89, Article 102100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lmot.2025.102100 · DOI
  33. Zhai, X., Nyaaba, M., & Ma, W. (2025). Can generative AI and ChatGPT outperform humans on cognitivedemanding problem- solving tasks in science? Science & Education, 34, 649-670. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-024-00496-1 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Raitskaya, L., & Tikhonova, E.
Affiliations
Moscow State Institute of International Relations (RU)
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Language and Education
Publisher
National Research University, Higher School of Economics (HSE)
Published
2025-06-30
Volume
11
Issue
2
Pages
5-19
ISSN
2411-7390 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.17323/jle.2025.27387
OpenAlex
W4412200802
Cited by
30
References
25
Citations by year
2026: 20 · 2025: 10
FWCI
31.45
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Journal of language and Education (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • CyberLeninK (CyberLeninka) (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
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, generative AI in education, critical thinking, university students, metacognition, cognitive offloading, AI literacy, academic writing, AI evaluation, ethical use of AI, critical autonomy

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