The DOI matches its DataCite record.
How critically can an AI think? A framework for evaluating the quality of thinking of generative artificial intelligence
Abstract
Generative AI such as those with large language models have created opportunities for innovative assessment design practices. Due to recent technological developments, there is a need to know the limits and capabilities of generative AI in terms of simulating cognitive skills. Assessing student critical thinking skills has been a feature of assessment for time immemorial, but the demands of digital assessment create unique challenges for equity, academic integrity and assessment authorship. Educators need a framework for determining their assessments vulnerability to generative AI to inform assessment design practices. This paper presents a framework that explores the capabilities of the LLM ChatGPT4 application, which is the current industry benchmark. This paper presents the Mapping of questions, AI vulnerability testing, Grading, Evaluation (MAGE) framework to methodically critique their assessments within their own disciplinary contexts. This critique will provide specific and targeted indications of their questions vulnerabilities in terms of the critical thinking skills. This can go on to form the basis of assessment design for their tasks.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
In the citing paper
“By mapping assessments to cognitive tasks, testing AI-generated responses, grading against specific values of inquiry (like accuracy, depth, and relevance), and evaluating the results, instructors can identify the risks of AI-produced content circumventing the learning process.”
From Integrating Generative Artificial Intelligence Tools and Competencies in Biomedical Engineering Education (2025) · cites this paper as [34]
In the citing paper
“This approach provides a methodical process for evaluating the vulnerability of assessments to AI, specifically focusing on critical thinking skills.”
From Integrating Generative Artificial Intelligence Tools and Competencies in Biomedical Engineering Education (2025) · cites this paper as [34]
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
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 9
- Clarke, R., & Lancaster, T. (2006). Eliminating the successor to plagiarism? Identifying the usage of contract cheating sites. Paper presented at the Proceedings of 2nd international plagiarism conference.
- El Hassan, K., & Madhum, G. (2007). Validating the Watson Glaser critical thinking appraisal. Higher Education, 54(3), 361-383.
- Ellerton, P., & Kelly, R. (2022). Creativity and critical thinking. In Education in the 21st Century: STEM, Creativity and Critical Thinking (pp. 9-27): Springer.
- Lawson, T. J., Jordan-Fleming, M. K., & Bodle, J. H. (2015). Measuring psychological critical thinking: An update. Teaching of Psychology, 42(3), 248-253.
- Mollick, E., & Mollick, L. (2023). Assigning AI: Seven Approaches for Students, with Prompts. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.10052. · arXiv
- Mollick, E. R., & Mollick, L. (2022). New modes of learning enabled by ai chatbots: Three methods and assignments. Available at SSRN.
- Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2013). Critical Thinking: Intellectual Standards Essential to Reasoning Well Within Every Domain of Human Thought, Part Two. Journal of developmental education, 37(1), 32.
- Pellegrino, J. H., Margaret. (2012). Education for life and work: Developing transferable knowledge and skills in the 21st century: National Academies Press.
- Wulandari, R., & Hindrayani, A. (2021). Measuring Critical Thinking Skills with the RED Model. Paper presented at the Journal of Physics: Conference Series.
Cited by
Khojah, R., Werth, A., Broadhead, K. W., Dobrucki, L. W., Geiger, C., & Rubenstein, D. A. (2025) · Biomedical Engineering Education · doi:10.1007/s43683-025-00175-9 · Cited by 9
(2025) · Journal of Applied Learning & Teaching · doi:10.37074/jalt.2025.8.1.20 · Cited by 7
Metadata
- Authors
- Zaphir, L., Lodge, J. M., Lisec, J., McGrath, D., & Khosravi, H.
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2024
- arXiv
- 2406.14769
- References
- 0
- Type
- Preprint
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
