AI may blunt our thinking skills - here's what you can do about it There is growing evidence that our reliance on generative AI tools is reducing our ability to think clearly and critically, but it doesn't have to be that way Socrates wasn't the greatest fan of the written word. Famous for leaving no texts to posterity, the great philosopher is said to have believed that a reliance on writing destroys the memory and weakens the mind . Some 2400 years later, Socrates's fears seem misplaced - particularly in light of evidence that writing things down improves memory formation . A growing number of psychologists, neuroscientists and philosophers worry that ChatGPT and similar generative AI tools will chip away at our powers of information recall and blunt our capacity for clear reasoning. What's more, while Socrates relied on clever rhetoric to make his argument, these researchers are grounding theirs in empirical data.

Critical thinking represents a fundamental competency in today's education landscape. Developing critical thinking skills through timely assessment and feedback is crucial; however, there has not been extensive work in the learning analytics community on defining, measuring, and supporting critical thinking. In this paper, we investigate the feasibility of measuring core "subskills" that underlie critical thinking. We ground our work in an authentic task where students operationalize critical thinking: student-written argumentative essays. We developed a coding rubric based on an established skills progression and completed human coding for a corpus of student essays. We then evaluated three distinct approaches to automated scoring: zero-shot prompting, few-shot prompting, and supervised fine-tuning, implemented across three large language models (GPT-5, GPT-5-mini, and ModernBERT). GPT-5 with few-shot prompting achieved the strongest results and demonstrated particular strength on subskills with separable, frequent categories, while lower performance was observed for subskills that required detection of subtle distinctions or rare categories. Our results underscore critical trade-offs in automated critical thinking assessment: proprietary models offer superior reliability at higher cost, while open-source alternatives provide practical accuracy with reduced sensitivity to minority categories. Our work represents an initial step toward scalable assessment of higher-order reasoning skills across authentic educational contexts.

Generative AI (GAI) tools have seen rapid adoption in educational settings, yet their role in fostering critical thinking remains underexplored. While previous studies have examined GAI as a tutor for specific lessons or as a tool for completing assignments, few have addressed how students critically evaluate the accuracy and appropriateness of GAI-generated responses. This pilot study investigates students' ability to apply structured critical thinking when assessing Generative AI outputs in introductory Computational and Data Science courses. Given that GAI tools often produce contextually flawed or factually incorrect answers, we designed learning activities that require students to analyze, critique, and revise AI-generated solutions. Our findings offer initial insights into students' ability to engage critically with GAI content and lay the groundwork for more comprehensive studies in future semesters.

Are AI chatbots dulling our brains? A new MIT study suggests critical thinking skills are at risk from tools like ChatGPT. What does the science say happens to brains that rely on AI? And how can you use AI tools while protecting your ability to think for yourself?

The use of chatbots equipped with artificial intelligence (AI) in educational settings has increased in recent years, showing potential to support teaching and learning. However, the adoption of these technologies has raised concerns about their impact on academic integrity, students' ability to problem-solve independently, and potential underlying biases. To better understand students' perspectives and experiences with these tools, a survey was conducted at a large public university in the United States. Through thematic analysis, 262 undergraduate students' responses regarding their perceived benefits and risks of AI chatbots in education were identified and categorized into themes. The results discuss several benefits identified by the students, with feedback and study support, instruction capabilities, and access to information being the most cited. Their primary concerns included risks to academic integrity, accuracy of information, loss of critical thinking skills, the potential development of overreliance, and ethical considerations such as data privacy, system bias, environmental impact, and preservation of human elements in education. While student perceptions align with previously discussed benefits and risks of AI in education, they show heightened concerns about distinguishing between human and AI generated work - particularly in cases where authentic work is flagged as AI-generated. To address students' concerns, institutions can establish clear policies regarding AI use and develop curriculum around AI literacy. With these in place, practitioners can effectively develop and implement educational systems that leverage AI's potential in areas such as immediate feedback and personalized learning support. This approach can enhance the quality of students' educational experiences while preserving the integrity of the learning process with AI.

This study employs the Paul-Elder Critical Thinking Model and Tan's argumentative writing framework to create a structured methodology. This methodology, ChatGPT Guideline for Critical Argumentative Writing (CGCAW) framework, integrates the models with ChatGPT's capabilities to guide L2 learners in utilizing ChatGPT to enhance their critical thinking skills. A quantitative experiment was conducted with 10 participants from a state university, divided into experimental and control groups. The experimental group utilized the CGCAW framework, while the control group used ChatGPT without specific guidelines. Participants wrote an argumentative essay within a 40-minute timeframe, and essays were evaluated by three assessors: ChatGPT, Grammarly, and a course instructor. Results indicated that the experimental group showed improvements in clarity, logical coherence, and use of evidence, demonstrating ChatGPT's potential to enhance specific aspects of argumentative writing. However, the control group performed better in overall language mechanics and articulation of main arguments, indicating areas where the CGCAW framework could be further refined. This study highlights the need for further research to optimize the use of AI tools like ChatGPT in L2 learning environments to enhance critical thinking and writing skills.

Existing Existing automatic audio generation methods struggle to generate podcast-like audio programs effectively. The key challenges lie in in-depth content generation, appropriate and expressive voice production. This paper proposed PodAgent, a comprehensive framework for creating audio programs. PodAgent 1) generates informative topic-discussion content by designing a Host-Guest-Writer multi-agent collaboration system, 2) builds a voice pool for suitable voice-role matching and 3) utilizes LLM-enhanced speech synthesis method to generate expressive conversational speech. Given the absence of standardized evaluation criteria for podcast-like audio generation, we developed comprehensive assessment guidelines to effectively evaluate the model's performance. Experimental results demonstrate PodAgent's effectiveness, significantly surpassing direct GPT-4 generation in topic-discussion dialogue content, achieving an 87.4% voice-matching accuracy, and producing more expressive speech through LLM-guided synthesis. Demo page: https://podcast-agent.github.io/demo/. Source code: https://github.com/yujxx/PodAgent.

Are we losing critical thinking skills to artificial intelligence? Using generative AI can limit its users' critical thinking when doing tasks. People using generative AI also think less critically when they trust the AI to do a task, such as developing an argument for a paper or presentation. The researchers behind the findings say the solution is to adapt the technology, rather than to limit its use. How does ChatGPT work and do AI-powered chatbots "think" like us? Lev Tankelevitch at Microsoft Research and his colleagues asked 319 workers to take part in a survey.

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.

The practice of transferring knowledge from a sophisticated, proprietary large language model (LLM) to a compact, open-source LLM has garnered considerable attention. Previous works have focused on a unidirectional knowledge distillation way by aligning the responses of the student model with those of the teacher model to a set of instructions. Nevertheless, they overlooked the possibility of incorporating any reciprocal "feedback"--identifying challenging instructions where the student model's performance falls short--to boost the student model's proficiency iteratively. To this end, we propose a novel adversarial distillation framework for a more efficient knowledge transfer. Leveraging the versatile role adaptability of LLMs, we prompt the teacher model to identify "hard" instructions and generate new "hard" instructions for the student model, creating a three-stage adversarial loop of imitation, discrimination, and generation. By applying this adversarial framework, we successfully transfer knowledge from ChatGPT to a student model (named Lion), using a mere 70k training data. Our results show that Lion-13B not only achieves comparable open-ended generation capabilities to ChatGPT but surpasses conventional state-of-the-art (SOTA) instruction-tuned models like Vicuna-13B by 55.4% in challenging zero-shot reasoning benchmarks such as BIG-Bench Hard (BBH) and 16.7% on AGIEval. Code and model can be found at https://github.com/YJiangcm/Lion.