Truace
Subscribe

GenAI ChatGPT use by university students affecting critical thinking across cognitive presence phases

Source article: Exploring the Impact of Generative AI ChatGPT on Critical Thinking in Higher Education: Passive AI-Directed Use or Human–AI Supported Collaboration?

Generative AI is weaving into the fabric of many human aspects through its transformative power to mimic human-generated content. It is not a mere technology; it functions as a generative virtual assistant, raising concerns about its impact on cognition and critical thinking. This mixed-methods study investigates how GenAI ChatGPT affects critical thinking across cognitive presence (CP) phases. Forty students from a four-year university in the southwestern United States completed a survey; six provided their Cha…

By the Truvace desk2 min read1 sourcePeer-reviewedTRV-2026-1312· cite & verify
Exploring the Impact of Generative AI ChatGPT on Critical Thinking in Higher Education: Passive AI-Directed Use or Human–AI Supported Collaboration?
"student_ipad_school - 078" by flickingerbrad is licensed under CC BY 2.0. To view a copy of this license, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/.
Trace impact readingContested
P 69The P score combines the specificity and measured human impact of the grounded problem claim with the strength of this Trace’s cited sources.

Both sides are scored from claims and sources, not community votes.

G 70The G score combines the specificity and measured human impact of the grounded gain claim with the strength of this Trace’s cited sources.

In brief

On September 11, 2025, a mixed-methods study reported on 40 students from a southwestern US university who used ChatGPT for learning tasks. Survey data showed mean improvements in triggering events, exploration, and integration, while resolution remained neutral, and script analysis identified passive AI-directed versus collaborative AI-supported interaction patterns.

The distinction matters because it suggests outcomes depend on interaction quality rather than tool access alone. Guided collaborative use was associated with completing all cognitive presence stages and enhanced critical thinking, while unguided passive use left a resolution gap, raising questions about how to design instruction and assessment to preserve human oversight and reflective inquiry.

Main points

  1. Mixed-methods study of 40 students at a four-year university in the southwestern United States, with 6 ChatGPT scripts and 2 interviews analyzed.
  2. Survey means showed improvement in triggering events, exploration, and integration, but neutral responses at resolution stage.
  3. Analysis revealed two interaction modes: passive AI-directed use versus collaborative AI-supported interaction.
  4. Interviews indicated guided collaborative use closed the resolution gap and reframed ChatGPT as a more knowledgeable other.

The gain

When used with guidance in collaborative human-AI interaction, ChatGPT helped university students complete all four cognitive presence phases and enhanced critical thinking, with self-reported improvements in triggering, exploration, and integration.

The problem

When used in passive AI-directed mode, ChatGPT left students neutral at the resolution stage of cognitive presence, creating a resolution gap in critical thinking development.

The rundown

The study surveyed 40 students and analyzed ChatGPT interaction scripts and interviews to map use onto four cognitive presence phases: triggering event, exploration, integration, and resolution.

Results distinguished passive AI-directed use, associated with stalled resolution, from collaborative AI-supported use with guidance, which was linked to completing all phases and reconceptualizing the tool as a more knowledgeable other.

What this doesn’t fix

Findings rest on a small, single-site sample and self-reported survey data, with only six scripts and two interviews, limiting generalizability beyond this context.

Sources

  1. Peer-reviewedEducation Sciences2025-09-11

The debate