by Mike Tomkins
‘...but it’s been published. That means it’s true, right?’
This is the kind of response I get regularly from students when I ask them to consider how far they agree with a claim or piece of research. Such conclusions suggest a lack of critical thinking (CT) on the students’ part, but why do they sometimes find it so challenging to evaluate critically what they have read or seen? Debates over this question are certainly not new, but with the rise of AI and the vast consumption of digital media, we need to renew interest in these questions.
What is critical thinking?
Critical thinking is such a pervasive part of good teaching that you’ve probably engaged with it, even without realising it, or without telling your students that’s what was going on.
Although conceptions of critical thinking vary in the literature, there is a broad consensus that it entails some kind of analysis and evaluation of arguments, claims, or evidence. Bloom’s Taxonomy provides a useful starting point in terms of understanding what this entails in relation to other types of cognitive process.
For those who are less familiar with the taxonomy, Bloom essentially places the different cognitive skills in a kind of hierarchy, with remembering and understanding at the bottom, followed by applying knowledge and analyzing, with evaluating and creating as the two at the very top.
While the taxonomy seems to suggest CT involves the ‘higher-order’ thinking skills, that is not to say it does not draw on the lower ones at the bottom of the pyramid. For any analysis or evaluation to be successful, one needs to have a sound understanding of the subject at hand. However, there is a tendency to fixate on the skills at the top because these are seen as the most desirable, which leads the others to be neglected or assumed already in place.
Some even go further and conceptualize CT not just in terms of cognitive abilities but dispositions. For Paul and Elder (2020:3), critical thinking is “self-directed, self-disciplined, self-monitored and self-corrected thinking”. The emphasis on the ‘self’ in this definition seems particularly pertinent for talking about CT as we enter 2025, as it suggests both responsibility and originality of thought.
Why do students often find critical thinking so difficult?
Critical thinking does not always come naturally to students. Much of the literature surrounding students’ difficulties with CT has centred around cultural differences. Some believe that CT is an exclusively Western construct and those from non-Western cultures are likely to find it difficult to grasp. This may be because of fears over criticising perceived authority figures (Andrews, 2003) or the fact CT is not given as much priority in their education system (Manolo et. al., 2015).
While cultural differences could well play a part, that is not to say students from such cultures are incapable of understanding and expressing critical thought. Nor is to say only students from a particular cultural background are likely to find it challenging. It is easy to see how the terms ‘critical thinking’ and ‘criticality’ or feedback such as ‘be more critical’, can lead anyone to merely equate them to ‘criticizing’ (as I did as an undergraduate).
A simple lack of subject knowledge or language proficiency could also explain why students may struggle with criticality. As we have seen, effective evaluation and analysis are dependent upon and draw on a sound understanding of the topic. Again, such difficulties are surely shared across cultures, rather than confined to one or another.
Does Artificial Intelligence affect critical thinking?
So where does Artificial Intelligence (AI) come into this? Clearly, it is not the main cause of students’ struggles with CT per se. The opening quote could simply be an expression of befuddlement from a student new to academia. But it is difficult to see how AI does not enlarge those struggles, or how students may lose sight of what it means to be a ‘critical thinker’ when they abrogate responsibility for their thinking to the AI.
Increasingly, I see essays or other written assignments that I strongly suspect have either been partly, or entirely written with the help of AI. There are the usual tell-tale signs: the lack of an authorial ‘voice’, inconsistent synthesis of ideas, or simply, few or no linguistic errors. Resources like zerogpt.com can help identify work that has been AI-generated, but more generally I find that a lot of what I’m reading fails a kind of ‘smell test’ - something about the text doesn’t seem right, and it usually comes down to one of the issues outlined above. However, even if it does manage to pass the test, it can highlight how AI use, for now at least, can only get you so far.
Last summer, whilst working on a pre-sessional course preparing students for university, the assignments that I read all struggled with criticality. This had been expected - engaging critically with academic texts is a very difficult thing to do. But if translation software had gone undetected in the initial ‘smell test’, it shows the limitations in AI’s current ability to think critically.
Recommendations
Although AI may have some detrimental effects on our students’ CT, that is not to say there is no use for it in the classroom. Pilar Capaul shared some excellent ideas in her article in the previous issue of the Journal showing the different ways in which we can use Chat GPT to enhance critical thinking skills. From getting students to compare and analyse different AIs’ responses, to testing the capacity of AI’s thought, thus helping students realise its limitations. By framing AI use through critical thinking, it shows the learners how best to approach it - with caution and questioning.
We should encourage our students to not just question AI though but to be curious about everything they read, even with ‘reliable’ sources like dictionaries. Often I see students who are content just finding out the meaning of a word. They write down the word and in their minds at least, they’ve ‘learned’ it. But what about its collocates (words that go with it)? Are there other equivalents that take on different parts of speech? How are these formed? Online dictionaries often have this kind of information alongside a meaning, but it can involve some digging and, of course, critical thinking, from the learners.
Bloom’s Taxonomy can also serve as a useful guide as to which processes students may or may not find challenging and inform future remedial practice in the classroom. Has the student’s written assignment largely just described the topic? Is there anything in the way of evaluation? You could involve the students in this process, even getting them to analyse AI-produced work using similar guided questions. It can also inform us as materials writers as to the nature of the activities we write. It is tempting to think we need to simply ensure more critically oriented questions are used in lessons, but it can also serve as a reminder of the importance of sequencing tasks based on their cognitive load. More ideas using Bloom’s Taxonomy to aid critical thinking can be found here.
Conclusion
Increased use of AIs like ChatGPT are not merely the problem. Rather, it seems indicative of the age in which we live, where vast amounts of information are consumed yet notions often go unchallenged and unquestioned.
However, we should remind ourselves that questioning effectively requires understanding and we should think about critical thinking not just in terms of what our students seem to struggle with, but also the ‘lower-order’ processes (understanding / applying etc...) that help them become critical thinkers.
After all, critical thinking has never been easy, and thanks to AI, the number of students turning to unethical ways to try and help them is only getting greater. To help combat this, we should make them aware of AI’s limitations, whilst instilling a curiosity and appreciation for the process of learning- just as Hend Elsheik wrote in Issue 53. This is because much of what critical thinking encompasses - the questioning, the evaluation, the self-correction - is essential for language learning. If learners want to get the most out of their learning, they have to take charge of it.
References
Andrews, R. (2007). ‘Argumentation, critical thinking and the postgraduate dissertation’. Educational Review, 59/1: 1–18
Capaul, P. (2024). ‘AI and Critical Thinking’. IH Journal, 53
Elsheik, H. (2024). ‘Survival of the Fittest in the Age of AI’. IH Journal, 53
Manalo, E., Kusumi, T., Koyasu, M., Michita, Y., & Tanaka, Y. (2015).
Do Students from Different Cultures Think Differently about Critical and Other Thinking Skills. In Davies, M., & Barnett, R. (2015). The Palgrave Handbook of Critical Thinking in Higher Education. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Paul, R. & Elder, L. (2020) The miniature guide to critical thinking concepts and tools. Eighth edition. Lanham, Rowman & Littlefield.
Westbrook, C. (2014). Teaching critical thinking using Bloom’s Taxonomy. Available at: https://www.cambridge.org/elt/blog/2014/04/18/teaching-critical-thinking-using-blooms-taxonomy/ (Accessed: 20/1/25)
Author Biography
Mike has been teaching since 2014 in different countries including Poland, South Korea, and now the UK where he teaches EAP. Along the way, he has successfully completed the DELTA and an MA in Applied Linguistics & ELT. His main pedagogical interests lie in learner autonomy, materials development and EAP. You can read more of his teaching thoughts on his blog.