CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 6Artificial Intelligence in EducationEducation and Critical Thinking DevelopmentEducational Strategies and Epistemologies

Advocating synergising a critical dialogic approach with competencies-trained dialoguing with GenAI tools to enhance students’ critical thinking and communication competencies

Open access
Rahimi, Muhammad·2025·Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice
DOI 10.53761/vaa8h214
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

This paper proposes synergising a critical dialogic approach with competencies-trained dialoguing with GenAI tools like ChatGPT as multidisciplinary more knowledgeable others to enhance students’ critical thinking and professional communication competencies. It emphasises the importance of engaging all students, regardless of their learning profiles, in authentic dialogic interactions requiring higher-order thinking skills to develop and enhance their critical thinking and communication competencies. It suggests that students develop at least a fundamental level of the target competencies through the critical dialogic approach and apply them in dialoguing with GenAI tools to further enhance their developing competencies. This paper also discusses the potential issues with the accuracy and reliability of ChatGPT’s responses and the importance of critical thinking and communication competencies in dialoguing with GenAI tools. Moreover, this paper proposes a professional proposal competencies framework, along with an associated rubric and key guiding questions, for use in the dialogic teaching and learning of critical thinking and communication competencies, dialoguing with GenAI tools to enhance these competencies, and assessing them. Overall, this paper conceptualises GenAI tools as additional more knowledgeable multidisciplinary dialoguing partners for students to enhance their developing competencies through critical dialoguing and proposes that the future of education may depend on our ability to synergise human and artificial intelligence to create more engaging and effective learning approaches.

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 · 10.53761/vaa8h214

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?

  • In the context of GenAI, co-design allows students to articulate their concerns, critique proposed guidelines, and contribute to the production of authentic examples grounded in their disciplinary contexts.

    “In the context of GenAI, co-design allows students to articulate their concerns, critique proposed guidelines, and contribute to the production of authentic examples grounded in their disciplinary contexts (Rahimi, 2025; Rana et al., 2025).”

    From Co-Designing For Integrity: A Student Partnership Approach to Developing Ethical AI Literacy Resources in Higher Education (2026) · cites this paper as Rahimi, 2025

    The Introduction (page unavailable) advocates valuing students’ contributions in dialogue with educators and GenAI, but does not address students co-designing GenAI guidelines. Searches for co-design, student concerns, critiques of guidelines, and disciplinary examples found no passage establishing the attributed claim. (LLM, conf=0.73)

    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 42 · Cited by 6

Research works printed but not linked: 45

  1. Alexander, R.J. (2001). Culture and pedagogy: International comparisons in primary education. Wiley-Blackwell. Culture and Pedagogy: International Comparisons in Primary Education | Wiley
  2. Alexander, R. (2020). A dialogic teaching companion. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351040143 · DOI
  3. August, E. T., Anderson, O. S., & Laubepin, F. A. (2024). Brave new words: A framework and process for developing technology-use guidelines for student writing. Pedagogy in Health Promotion, 10(3), 187-196. https://doi.org/10.1177/23733799241235119 · DOI
  4. Bachman, L. F., & Palmer, A. S. (2010). Language assessment in practice. Oxford University Press. Language Assessment in Practice: Developing Language Assessments and ... -Lyle Bachman, Palmer Adrian -Google Books
  5. Bakhtin, M. (1986). Speech genres and other late essays. University of Texas Press. Speech Genres and Other Late Essays -M. M. Bakhtin -Google Books
  6. Barkaoui, K., & Hadidi, A. (2020). Assessing change in English second language writing performance. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003092346 · DOI
  7. Beck, S. W., Jones, K., Storm, S., & Smith, H. (2020). Scaffolding students' writing processes through dialogic assessment. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 63(6), 651-660. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaal.1039 · DOI
  8. Biggs, J., & Tang, C. (2011). Teaching for quality learning at university (4 th Ed). Open University Press. Teaching For Quality Learning At University -Biggs, John, Tang, Catherine -Google Books
  9. Chiasson, P. (2005). Peirce's design for thinking: An embedded philosophy of education. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 37(2), pp.207-226. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469- 5812.2005.00110.x · DOI
  10. Connor, U., & Mbaye, A. (2002). Discourse approaches to writing assessment. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190502000144 · DOI
  11. Crawford, J., Cowling, M., Ashton-Hay, S., Kelder, J., Middleton, R., & Wilson, G. S. (2023). Artificial intelligence and authorship editor policy: ChatGPT, Bard Bing AI, and beyond. Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice, 20(5). https://doi.org/10.53761/1.20.5.01 · DOI
  12. Crossley, S. A., Kyle, K., & McNamara, D. S. (2016). The development and use of cohesive devices in L2 writing and their relations to judgments of essay quality. Journal of Second Language Writing, 32, 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2016.01.003 · DOI
  13. Cumming, A., Kantor, R., Baba, K., Erdosy, U., Eouanzoui, K., & James, M. (2005). Differences in written discourse in independent and integrated prototype tasks for next generation TOEFL. Assessing Writing, 10(1), 5-43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2005.02.001 · DOI
  14. Elder, L., & Paul, R. (2020). Critical thinking: Tools for taking charge of your learning and your life. Pearson. Critical Thinking, Pearson New International Edition
  15. Ennis, R. H. (1993). Critical thinking assessment. Theory Into Practice, 32(3), 179-186. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405849309543594 · DOI · Paper page
  16. Ennis, R. (2011a). Critical thinking: Reflection and perspective part II. Inquiry: Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines, 26(2), 26(1), pp.4-18. https://doi.org/10.5840/inquiryctnews20112613 · DOI
  17. Ennis, R. (2011b). Critical thinking: Reflection and perspective part II. Inquiry: Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines, 26(2), pp.5-19. https://doi.org/10.5840/inquiryctnews201126215 · DOI
  18. Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. Longman. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2011.01232_1.x · DOI
  19. Hartmann, J., Schwenzow, J., & Witte, M. (2023). The political ideology of conversational AI: Converging evidence on ChatGPT's pro-environmental, left-libertarian orientation. ArXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/2301.01768 · arXiv
  20. Hirose, K. (2003). Comparing L1 and L2 organisational patterns in the argumentative writing of Japanese EFL students. Journal of second language writing, 12(2), 181-209. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(03)00015-8 · DOI
  21. Hyland, K. (2004). Disciplinary interactions: Metadiscourse in L2 postgraduate writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13(2), 133-151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2004.02.001 · DOI
  22. Hyland, K. (2008). Disciplinary voices: Interactions in research writing. English text construction, 1(1), 5-22. https://doi.org/10.1075/etc.1.1.03hyl Kibler, A., Valdés, G., & Walqui, A. (2020). Introduction: A vision for critical dialogic education. In Reconceptualizing the role of critical dialogue in American classrooms (pp. 1-22). Routledge. Reconceptualizing the Role of Critical Dialogue in American Classrooms · DOI
  23. Knoch, U., & Sitajalabhorn, W. (2013). A closer look at integrated writing tasks: Towards a more focused definition for assessment purposes. Assessing Writing, 18(4), 300-308. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2013.09.003 · DOI
  24. Laufer, B. & Nation, P. (1995). Vocabulary size and use: Lexical richness in L2 written production. Applied Linguistics, 16 (3), 307-22. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/16.3.307 · DOI · Paper page
  25. Lu, X. (2012). The relationship of lexical richness to the quality of ESL learners' oral narratives. The Modern Language Journal, 96(2), 190-208. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540- 4781.2011.01232_1.x · DOI
  26. Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2019). The miniature guide to critical thinking concepts and tools. Rowman & Littlefield. The Miniature Guide to Critical Thinking Concepts and Tools, Eighth Edition - 9781538134948
  27. Plakans, L. (2014). Written discourse. In A. J. Kunnan (Ed.), The companion to language assessment (pp. 1-13). John Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118411360 · DOI
  28. Polio, C. & Shea, M. C. (2014). An investigation into current measures of linguistic accuracy in second language writing research. Journal of Second Language Writing, 26, 10-27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2014.09.003 · DOI
  29. Purvis, A. J. & Crawford, J. (2024). Ethical standards in educational research and publication. Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice, 21(9). https://doi.org/10.53761/hqnqr710 · DOI
  30. Rahimi, M. (2016). Task complexity, affective factors, and pre-task planning: Effects on L2 writing production (Doctoral dissertation, ResearchSpace@ Auckland). https://researchspace.auckland.ac.nz/items/eca09926-6a77-4921-9b68-d8b9854ae6d5
  31. Rahimi, M. (2023). Developing and analysing an authentic technical proposal writing assignment through the lens of an authenticity framework: Implications for practice. Journal of Applied Learning & Teaching, 6(2), 1-6. https://doi.org/10.37074/jalt.2023.6.2.28 · DOI
  32. Rahimi, M. (2024). Effects of integrating motivational instructional strategies into a process-genre writing instructional approach on students' engagement and argumentative writing. System: An International Journal of Educational Technology and Applied Linguistics, 121, 103261. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2024.103261 · DOI
  33. Rahimi, M., & Zhang, L. J. (2022). Effects of an engaging process-genre approach on student engagement and writing achievements. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 38(5), 487-503. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573569.2021.1982431 · DOI
  34. Roe, J., & Perkins, M. (2024). Generative AI and agency in Education: A critical scoping review and thematic analysis. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2411.00631 · DOI
  35. Skidmore, D. (2016). Pedagogy and dialogue. In D. Skidmore & K. Murakami (Eds.), Dialogic pedagogy: The importance of dialogue in teaching and learning (pp. 98-110). Multilingual Matters. Dialogic Pedagogy by David Skidmore
  36. Stapleton, P., & Wu, Y. A. (2015). Assessing the quality of arguments in students' persuasive writing: A case study analyzing the relationship between surface structure and substance. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 17, 12-23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2014.11.006 · DOI
  37. Stojanov, A. (2023). Learning with ChatGPT 3.5 as a more knowledgeable other: an autoethnographic study. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 20(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-023-00404-7 · DOI · Paper page
  38. Su, Y., Lin, Y., & Lai, C. (2023). Collaborating with ChatGPT in argumentative writing classrooms. Assessing Writing, 57, 100752. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2023.100752 · DOI
  39. Tang, K. S., Cooper, G., Rappa, N., Cooper, M., Sims, C., & Nonis, K. (2024). A dialogic approach to transform teaching, learning & assessment with generative AI in secondary education: a proof of concept. Pedagogies: An International Journal, 19(3), 493-503. https://doi.org/10.1080/1554480X.2024.2379774 · DOI · Paper page
  40. Toulmin, S. (2003). The uses of argument. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511840005 · DOI · Paper page
  41. Uludag, P., & McDonough, K. (2022). Validating a rubric for assessing integrated writing in an EAP context. Assessing Writing, 52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2022.100609 · DOI
  42. Vygotsky, L. (1986). Thought and language. MIT Press. Thought and Language
  43. Wang, D., Liu, H., & Hau, K. (2021). Automated and interactive game-based assessment of critical thinking. Education and Information Technologies, 27(4), 4553- 4575. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10777-9 · DOI
  44. Wiggins, G. P., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design. Ascd. Understanding by Design, Expanded 2nd Edition
  45. Wolfe-Quintero, K., Inagaki, S., & Kim, H. Y. (1998). Second language development in writing: Measures of fluency, accuracy, & complexity. University of Hawaii Press. Second Language Development in Writing: Measures of Fluency, Accuracy ... -Kate Wolfe-Quintero, Shunji Inagaki, Hae-Young Kim -Google Books

Authors
Rahimi, M.
Affiliations
Singapore Institute of Technology (SG)
Corresponding author
Rahimi, Muhammad
ORCID
Rahimi, Muhammad
Venue
Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice
Publisher
Open Access Publishing Association
Published
2025-06-02
Volume
22
Issue
2
ISSN
1449-9789 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.53761/vaa8h214
OpenAlex
W4411006687
Cited by
6
References
42
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 2
FWCI
6.29
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
Funders
Strong
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Artificial Intelligence in Education
  • Social Sciences › Education › Education and Critical Thinking Development
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Educational Strategies and Epistemologies
Keywords
generative AI tools, ChatGPT, critical thinking, communication skills, professional communication, more knowledgeable other, higher-order thinking skills, competency framework, assessment rubrics

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