Canonical text (the exact bytes fingerprinted)

TRUVACE RECORD VERSION
record: TRV-2026-1836
version: 1
kind: certified
reason: Certified into the record
timestamp: 2026-10-18T18:13:12.207550Z
status: published
lens: p_space
sector: education
headline: Investigating the Impact of AI-Facilitated Socratic Dialogue on Critical Thinking Skills
dek: This mixed-method study aims to explore the impact of having Socratic dialogue with artificial intelligence (AI) on students' critical thinking skills’ performance. The data were gathered from 35 foundation-level students. The study utilised a Watson Glaser critical thinking pre-test and post-test to measure their critical thinking abilities and a questionnaire to gather their perception of AI usage. During the intervention, students were engaged in structured AI-facilitated Socratic questioning sessions weekly.…
gain_title: (none)
problem_title: After weekly AI-facilitated Socratic questioning sessions, 35 foundation-level students showed no statistically significant pre- to post-test change in critical thinking, even though they viewed AI use positively.
trace_subject: (none)
gain_reading: (none)
gain_evidence: (none)
problem_reading: After weekly AI-facilitated Socratic questioning sessions, 35 foundation-level students showed no statistically significant pre- to post-test change in critical thinking, even though they viewed AI use positively.
problem_evidence: there is no statistically significant difference between the pre- and post-tests (p > .05) | students’ critical thinking performance did not improve throughout the study
quick_read: Researchers ran a mixed-method study in which 35 foundation-level students took part in weekly, structured Socratic questioning sessions led by artificial intelligence. Critical thinking was measured before and after with the Watson Glaser test, and a questionnaire captured how students felt about using AI.

The results suggest that liking an AI learning tool does not guarantee measurable skill growth, which matters for schools weighing such tools. The study reports only this single group and design, so it cannot say whether different formats, longer use, or other student groups would change the outcome.
limitation: The evidence comes from a small sample of 35 foundation-level students, so the finding that scores did not improve may not generalize to other populations or intervention designs.
tag: Evidence-backed problem
key_points: The study involved 35 foundation-level students taking part in weekly structured AI-facilitated Socratic questioning. | Critical thinking was assessed with a Watson Glaser pre-test and post-test, with paired-sample t-tests used to compare them. | Pre- and post-test scores showed no statistically significant difference (p > .05). | Survey responses showed a positive perception of AI use among students. | Regression found very little link between perception and performance (R² = 0.038, p > .05).
rundown: The intervention consisted of weekly sessions in which students engaged in structured Socratic questioning with an AI system. The design combined quantitative testing with a questionnaire on perceptions, and survey responses were examined for thematic trends.

Statistical analysis used paired-sample t-tests for the Watson Glaser scores and linear regression to test whether perception related to performance. Neither analysis found a significant effect.

The authors describe a gap between students' favorable attitudes toward AI and their actual development of critical thinking skills, indicating that enthusiasm was not a good indicator of learning gains in this study.
sources:
- peer_reviewed | International Journal of Teacher Education Research Studies (IJTERS) | https://doi.org/10.63090/ijters/3049.1614.0064 | 2026-10-17
prev: 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

sha256

0e454d37ef1786ea8b1a08ca72682200cda0fbffa4237b83961aa17ab536c817

previous

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000