Cited by 29Artificial Intelligence in EducationEducation and Critical Thinking DevelopmentArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education

The Use of AI in Improving Student's Critical Thinking Skills

Open access
Lawasi, Miryam Caroline, Rohman, Vina Aulia, Shoreamanis, Meicky·2024·Proceedings Series on Social Sciences & Humanities

Abstract

The use of artificial intelligence (AI) in education has the potential to significantly enhance students' critical thinking skills. This study explores how AI tools can improve critical thinking among students majoring in English Education at X University. Utilizing a mixedmethods approach, the research combines quantitative surveys and qualitative interviews to assess the frequency and contexts of AI usage and its impact on critical thinking. Survey results reveal that 64% of respondents use AI tools several times a week, predominantly in educational settings. A smaller percentage of respondents use AI daily (14%), while another 14% use AI rarely, and 7% use it several times a month. Interviews with frequent AI users indicate that AI assists in expanding ideas and providing deeper insights, but its effectiveness depends on the users' ability to ask precise questions and critically interpret AI-generated content. The findings highlight that while AI can significantly aid in developing critical thinking skills through personalized learning experiences and interactive simulations, challenges such as potential biases and the need for foundational understanding persist. Ultimately, this research underscores the importance of thoughtful and critical use of AI in education to foster improved critical thinking skills.

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 · 10.30595/pssh.v18i.1279

Cites

12 of 12 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?

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: 1

  1. Masadeh, T. S. Y. (2021). EFL teachers critical thinking behaviors and the challenges facing them in classrooms. Journal of English Language Teaching , 10(2).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lawasi, M. C., Rohman, V. A., & Shoreamanis, M.
Affiliations
Pelita Harapan University (ID)
Venue
Proceedings Series on Social Sciences & Humanities
Published
2024-09-23
Volume
18
Pages
366-370
ISSN
2808-103X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4402838991
Cited by
29
References
12
Citations by year
2026: 14 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 1
FWCI
10.94
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
Proceedings Series on Social Sciences & Humanities (publishedVersion, cc-by)
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
artificial intelligence in education, critical thinking skills, English education students, personalized learning, interactive simulation, algorithmic bias, university students

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