Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 21

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Prompting Minds: Evaluating how Students Perceive Generative AI’s Critical Thinking Dispositions

Oliveira, Luciana, Tavares, Célia, Strzelecki, Artur, Silva, Manuel·2025·Electronic Journal of e-Learning
DOI 10.34190/ejel.23.2.3986
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

As generative artificial intelligence tools like ChatGPT become increasingly integrated into educational environments, understanding their impact on critical thinking is crucial. Despite growing concerns about AI's potential to diminish students' independent reasoning, there is a lack of research tools specifically designed to evaluate students' perceptions of AI's cognitive capabilities. To address this gap, this study introduces the Perceived Critical Thinking Disposition of Generative Artificial Intelligence (PCTD-GAI) scale, aimed at measuring how students perceive generative AI’s (GAI) six critical thinking dispositions (reasoning, access to justice, search for evidence, search for truth, open-mindedness, and systematicity). While this study validates the scale using ChatGPT, the instrument is adaptable for evaluating other generative AI tools, supporting broader research in AI-driven learning environments, to assess not only how students engage with AI, but also how their reliance on AI may affect their cognitive development and self-regulated learning skills in digital education. To develop and validate the PCTD-GAI scale, the Marmara Critical Thinking Dispositions Scale (MCTDS) was adapted, ensuring relevance to AI assessment while maintaining conceptual robustness. A quantitative cross-sectional study was conducted with 931 university students from Portugal and Poland, employing exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses (EFA & CFA) to assess the scale’s validity and reliability. The results demonstrate that the PCTD-GAI effectively captures students’ perceptions of ChatGPT’s critical thinking dispositions across six key dimensions. Findings indicate moderately positive perceptions across both countries, with Portuguese students consistently rating ChatGPT marginally higher across domains and showing less response variability, suggesting greater consensus. Notably, perceptions were most neutral in the "truth-seeking" domain, while systematicity received the highest ratings, reflecting ChatGPT’s perceived systematic capabilities among students. These findings have significant implications for e-learning and AI-driven education. The PCTD-GAI scale enables educators to track students’ evolving AI literacy and develop targeted interventions that promote critical AI engagement rather than passive reliance on AI-generated content. Moreover, this research advances the field of e-learning by offering an empirical basis for integrating AI assessment into digital learning strategies, ensuring that AI serves as a cognitive tool rather than a substitute for independent reasoning. The validated PCTD-GAI scale provides a reliable, scalable method for assessing students’ perceptions of AI's cognitive capabilities, supporting evidence-based AI pedagogy, and guiding institutional policies on AI integration in education.

Overview

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 · 10.34190/ejel.23.2.3986

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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.

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 59

  1. Abbas, M., Jam, F.A. and Khan, T.I. (2024) 'Is it harmful or helpful? Examining the causes and consequences of generative AI usage among university students', International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 21(1), p. 10. Available at: 10.1186/s41239-024-00444-7 · DOI · Paper page
  2. Bai, L., Liu, X. and Su, J. (2023) 'ChatGPT: The cognitive effects on learning and memory', Brain-X, 1(3), p. e30. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1002/brx2.30 · DOI
  3. Basto, M. and Pereira, J.M. (2012) 'An SPSS R-Menu for Ordinal Factor Analysis', Journal of Statistical Software, 46(4), pp. 1- 29. Available at: 10.18637/jss.v046.i04 · DOI
  4. Black, B. (2012) 'An overview of a programme of research to support the assessment of Critical Thinking', Thinking Skills and Creativity, 7(2), pp. 122-133. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2012.04.003 · DOI
  5. Bonacaro, A., Rubbi, I., Artioli, G., Monaco, F., Sarli, L. and Guasconi, M. (2024) 'AI and Big Data: Current and Future Nursing Practitioners' Views on Future of Healthcare Education Provision', Studies in health technology and informatics, 315, pp. 200-204.
  6. Bravo, M.J., Galiana, L., Rodrigo, M.F., Navarro-Pérez, J.J. and Oliver, A. (2020) 'An adaptation of the Critical Thinking Disposition Scale in Spanish youth', Thinking Skills and Creativity, 38, p. 100748. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2020.100748 · DOI
  7. Castaño, J.P., Arnal-Pastor, M., Pagán-Castaño, E. and Guijarro-García, M. (2023) 'Bibliometric analysis of the literature on critical thinking: an increasingly important competence for higher education students', Economic Research- Ekonomska Istraživanja, 36(2), p. 2125888. Available at: 10.1080/1331677X.2022.2125888 · DOI
  8. Chukwuere, J. (2024) 'The future of generative AI chatbots in higher education', arXiv e-prints, p. arXiv: 2403.13487. · arXiv
  9. Cotton, D.R.E., Cotton, P.A. and Shipway, J.R. (2024) 'Chatting and cheating: Ensuring academic integrity in the era of ChatGPT', Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 61(2), pp. 228-239. Available at: 10.1080/14703297.2023.2190148 · DOI · Paper page
  10. Crompton, H. and Burke, D. (2023) 'Artificial intelligence in higher education: the state of the field', International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 20(1), p. 22. Available at: 10.1186/s41239-023-00392-8 · DOI · Paper page
  11. Domingos, P., Lowd, D., Kok, S., Nath, A., Poon, H., Richardson, M. and Singla, P. (2016) 'Unifying Logical and Statistical AI', Proceedings of the 31st Annual ACM/IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science. New York, NY, USA. Association for Computing Machinery, pp. 1-11. doi: 10.1145/2933575.2935321. · DOI
  12. Ennis, R.H. (1987) 'A taxonomy of critical thinking dispositions and abilities', in Teaching thinking skills: Theory and practice.: Series of books in psychology. New York, NY, US: W H Freeman/Times Books/ Henry Holt & Co, pp. 9-26.
  13. Ennis, R.H. (2011) 'The nature of critical thinking: An outline of critical thinking dispositions and abilities', University of Illinois, 2(4), pp. 1-8.
  14. Ennis, R.H. (2015) 'Critical Thinking: A Streamlined Conception', in M. Davies and R. Barnett (eds.) The Palgrave Handbook of Critical Thinking in Higher Education. New York: Palgrave Macmillan US, pp. 31-47. doi: 10.1057/9781137378057_2. · DOI · Paper page
  15. Essel, H.B., Vlachopoulos, D., Essuman, A.B. and Amankwa, J.O. (2024) 'ChatGPT effects on cognitive skills of undergraduate students: Receiving instant responses from AI-based conversational large language models (LLMs)', Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 6, p. 100198. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2023.100198 · DOI · Paper page
  16. Evens, M., Verburgh, A. and Elen, J. (2014) 'The Development of Critical Thinking in Professional and Academic Bachelor Programmes', Higher education studies, 4(2), pp. 42-51.
  17. Facione, N.C. and Facione, P.A. (1994) The California critical thinking skills test: Test manual. Millbrae, CA: California Academic Press.
  18. Facione, N.C., Facione, P.A. and Sanchez, C.A. (1994) 'Critical Thinking Disposition as a Measure of Competent Clinical Judgment: The Development of the California Critical Thinking Disposition Inventory', Journal of Nursing Education, 33(8), pp. 345-350. Available at: doi:10.3928/0148-4834-19941001-05 · DOI · Paper page
  19. Facione, P.A. (2000) 'The disposition toward critical thinking: Its character, measurement, and relationship to critical thinking skill', Informal logic, 20(1) Available at: 10.22329/il.v20i1.2254 · DOI
  20. Facione, P.A. (2013) 'Critical thinking: What it is and why it counts', Insight assessment, 1(1), pp. 1-23.
  21. Facione, P.A., xe, nchez, C.A., Facione, N.C. and Gainen, J. (1995) 'The disposition toward critical thinking', The Journal of General Education, 44(1), pp. 1-25. Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/27797240 (Accessed: 2024/10/18/).
  22. Fradkov, A.L. (2020) 'Early History of Machine Learning', IFAC-PapersOnLine, 53(2), pp. 1385-1390. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ifacol.2020.12.1888 ©The Authors · DOI · Paper page
  23. Frisby, C.L. and and Traffanstedt, B.K. (2003) 'Time and Performance on the California Critical Thinking Skills Test', Journal of College Reading and Learning, 34(1), pp. 26-43. Available at: 10.1080/10790195.2003.10850154 · DOI
  24. Gadzella, B.M., Stacks, J., Stephens, R.C. and Masten, W.G. (2005) 'Watson-Glaser critical thinking appraisal, form-S for education majors', Journal of instructional psychology, 32(1), p.
  25. Güss, C.D. and Wiley, B. (2007) 'Metacognition of Problem-Solving Strategies in Brazil, India, and the United States', Journal of Cognition and Culture, 7(1-2), pp. 1-25. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1163/156853707X171793 · DOI
  26. Hadi, M.R., Deng, C., Juho Kim, J., Zhou, P., D. Kwon, Y., Hosny Saleh Metwally, A., Tlili, A., Bassanelli, S., Bucchiarone, A., Gujar, S., Nacke, L.E. and Hui, P. (2024) 'ChatGPT in education: A blessing or a curse? A qualitative study exploring early adopters' utilization and perceptions', Computers in Human Behavior: Artificial Humans, 2(1), p. 100027. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chbah.2023.100027 · DOI · Paper page
  27. Hair, J., Black, W., Babin, B. and Anderson, R. (2009) Multivariate Data Analysis. 7 edn. Pearson.
  28. Hodges, T. (2024) 'AI image generation in game design: The Future of AI asset Prompting', 2024 Symposium. Eastern Washington University. Available at: https://dc.ewu.edu/srcw_2024/ps_2024/p2_2024/37.
  29. Hutson, J. and Cotroneo, P. (2023) 'Generative AI tools in art education: Exploring prompt engineering and iterative processes for enhanced creativity', 2023, Available at: 10.54517/m.v4i1.2164 · DOI
  30. Leung, K.-H. (2019) 'The Picture of Artificial Intelligence and the Secularization of Thought', Political Theology, 20(6), pp. 457-471. Available at: 10.1080/1462317X.2019.1605725 · DOI
  31. Lo, C.K. (2023) 'What Is the Impact of ChatGPT on Education? A Rapid Review of the Literature', Education Sciences, 13(4), p. 410. Available at: 10.3390/educsci13040410 · DOI · Paper page
  32. Lomax, R.G. and Schumacker, R.E. (2012) A beginner's guide to structural equation 17 modeling. Routledge Academic.
  33. Merfeldaite, O., Indrašienė, V., Jegelevičienė, V., Railienė, A., Pivorienė, J., Sadauskas, J., Valavičienė, N. and Penkauskienė, D. (2019) Society. Integration. Education. International Scientific Conference.
  34. O'shea, K. and Nash, R. (2015) 'An introduction to convolutional neural networks', arXiv preprint arXiv:1511.08458. · arXiv
  35. Özgenel, M. and Çetin, M. (2018) 'Development of the Marmara critical thinking dispositions scale: Validity and reliability analysis', International Journal of Eurasia Social Sciences, 9(32), pp. 991-1015.
  36. Pathak, S., Dewangan, R.L. and Mohanty, S.N. (2021) 'Decision Making Under Uncertainty and Problem Solving', in S. Nandan Mohanty (ed.) Decision Making And Problem Solving: A Practical Guide For Applied Research. Cham: Springer International Publishing, pp. 1-12. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-66869-3_1. · DOI
  37. Perkins, D.N. (1985) 'Creativity by design', in A. Costa (ed.) Developing minds: A resource book for teaching thinking, Vol. 1. Alexandria, Virginia: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, pp. 295-297.
  38. Puig, B., Blanco-Anaya, P., Bargiela, I.M. and Crujeiras-Pérez, B. (2019) 'A systematic review on critical thinking intervention studies in higher education across professional fields', Studies in Higher Education, 44(5), pp. 860-869. Available at: 10.1080/03075079.2019.1586333 · DOI
  39. Rashid, S.F., Duong-Trung, N. and Pinkwart, N. (2024) 'Generative AI in Education: Technical Foundations, Applications, and Challenges', in S. Kadry (ed.) Artificial Intelligence and Education -Shaping the Future of Learning. Rijeka: IntechOpen. doi: 10.5772/intechopen.1005402. · DOI
  40. Riaz, S. and Mushtaq, A. (2024) 2024 Advances in Science and Engineering Technology International Conferences (ASET). 3-5 June 2024. doi: 10.1109/ASET60340.2024.10708721. · DOI
  41. Salehinejad, H., Sankar, S., Barfett, J., Colak, E. and Valaee, S. (2017) 'Recent advances in recurrent neural networks', arXiv preprint arXiv:1801.01078. · arXiv
  42. Schmidhuber, J. (2022) 'Annotated history of modern ai and deep learning', arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.11279. · arXiv
  43. Shi, D., DiStefano, C., Maydeu-Olivares, A. and Lee, T. (2022) 'Evaluating SEM Model Fit with Small Degrees of Freedom', Multivariate Behavioral Research, 57(2-3), pp. 179-207. Available at: 10.1080/00273171.2020.1868965 · DOI · Paper page
  44. Shin, H., Park, C.G. and Kim, H. (2015) 'Validation of Yoon's Critical Thinking Disposition Instrument', Asian Nursing Research, 9(4), pp. 342-348. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anr.2015.10.004 · DOI
  45. Siegel, H. (2010) 'Critical Thinking', in P. Peterson, E. Baker and B. Mcgaw (eds.) International Encyclopedia of Education. Oxford: Elsevier, pp. 141-145.
  46. Smolensky, P. (1987) 'Connectionist AI, symbolic AI, and the brain', Artificial Intelligence Review, 1(2), pp. 95-109. Available at: 10.1007/BF00130011 ISSN 1479-4403 · DOI
  47. Solanke, S. (2024) 'The Prospects of Generative AI in Higher Education', International Journal of Scientific Research in Engineering and Management, 8(5).
  48. Tang, T., Sha, J., Zhao, Y., Wang, S., Wang, Z. and 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, 53, p. 101607. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2024.101607 · DOI
  49. Thomas, C.L. and Hayes, A.R. (2021) 'Using exploratory structural equation modeling to investigate the construct validity of the Critical Thinking Disposition Scale', Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 39(5), pp. 640-648. Available at: 10.1177/0734282921990564 · DOI
  50. Todorovska, R. (2024) 'Critical Thinking in the Language Classroom-An Important 21st Century Skill', International Journal of Education and Philology, 5(1), pp. 39-48. Available at: https://doi.org//10.69648/BFSI1617 · DOI
  51. Turing, A.M. (1950) 'I.-Computing Machinery and Intelligence', Mind, LIX(236), pp. 433-460. Available at: 10.1093/mind/LIX.236.433 · DOI · Paper page
  52. Uzuntiryaki-Kondakci, E. and Çapa-Aydin, Y. (2013) 'Predicting Critical Thinking Skills of University Students through Metacognitive Self-Regulation Skills and Chemistry Self-Efficacy', Kuram Ve Uygulamada Egitim Bilimleri, 13, pp. 666- 670.
  53. Vaswani, A., Shazeer, N., Parmar, N., Uszkoreit, J., Jones, L., Gomez, A.N., Kaiser, Ł. and Polosukhin, I. (2017) 'Attention is all you need', Advances in neural information processing systems, 30.
  54. Vincent-Lancrin, S. (2024) 'Critical thinking ', in F. Darbellay (ed.) Elgar Encyclopedia of Interdisciplinarity and Transdisciplinarity. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 124-128.
  55. Yilmaz, R. and Karaoglan Yilmaz, F.G. (2023) 'The effect of generative artificial intelligence (AI)-based tool use on students' computational thinking skills, programming self-efficacy and motivation', Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 4, p. 100147. Available at: 10.1016/j.caeai.2023.100147 · DOI · Paper page
  56. Yoon, J. (2014) 'Development of Critical Thinking Skill Evaluation Scale for Nursing Students', Journal of Korean Academy of Nursing, 44(2), pp. 129-138. Available at: 10.4040/jkan.2014.44.2.129 · DOI
  57. Zaphir, L., Lodge, J.M., Lisec, J., McGrath, D. and Khosravi, H. (2024) 'How critically can an AI think? A framework for evaluating the quality of thinking of generative artificial intelligence', arXiv Preprint, Available at: 10.48550/arXiv.2406.14769 · DOI · Paper page
  58. Zawacki-Richter, O., Marín, V.I., Bond, M. and Gouverneur, F. (2019) 'Systematic review of research on artificial intelligence applications in higher education -where are the educators?', International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 16(1), p. 39. Available at: 10.1186/s41239-019-0171-0 · DOI · Paper page
  59. Zhang, M.F., Dawson, J.F. and Kline, R.B. (2021) 'Evaluating the Use of Covariance-Based Structural Equation Modelling with Reflective Measurement in Organizational and Management Research: A Review and Recommendations for Best Practice', British Journal of Management, 32(2), pp. 257-272. Available at: 10.1111/1467-8551.12415 · DOI

Cited by

See all 21

Metadata

Authors
Oliveira, L., Tavares, C., Strzelecki, A., & Silva, M.
ORCID
Venue
Electronic Journal of e-Learning
Publisher
Academic Conferences and Publishing International Ltd
Published
2025-04-29
Volume
23
Issue
2
Pages
1-18
ISSN
1479-4403
DOI
10.34190/ejel.23.2.3986
Cited by
21
References
1
Licence
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 (unspecified)

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

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.