Artificial intelligence is rapidly becoming part of everyday teaching and learning. It can generate ideas, answer questions, provide feedback, and solve problems in seconds. As these tools become increasingly capable, educators face an important question:
How can AI strengthen critical thinking rather than replace it?
This open educational resource explores that question through current research, evidence-based instructional practices, and interactive learning experiences designed to help educators thoughtfully integrate AI into teaching and learning.
Together, we’ll examine why critical thinking is more important than ever, explore research-informed instructional practices that develop stronger thinkers, and consider how AI can support learning without replacing the cognitive work students need to do themselves.
Throughout the resource, you’ll have opportunities to:
- Explore current research on AI and critical thinking.
- Examine evidence-based instructional practices that develop stronger thinkers.
- Evaluate how AI can either replace or extend student thinking.
- Engage with videos, reflection activities, and authentic classroom examples.
- Participate in Vantage, our interactive learning experience that invites you to apply ideas, consider multiple perspectives, and reflect on the role of AI in teaching and learning.
Designed for educators from Grades 4 through post-secondary, this resource combines research, practical classroom strategies, and opportunities for reflection to support thoughtful conversations about teaching and learning in the age of AI.
Whether you’re new to AI or already integrating it into your classroom, we hope this resource encourages you to reflect on your own practice, explore new possibilities, and make thoughtful instructional decisions that use AI to deepen learning while keeping students—and their thinking—at the center of the learning process.
Explore the Resource
PLEASE NOTE: The second Genially activity in the OER requires you to SCROLL down as some questions have multiple answers.
Join the Conversation
After exploring the resource, we’d love to continue the conversation. Share your thoughts in the comments below.
- How has AI changed the way you think about teaching critical thinking?
- Where do you see AI strengthening student thinking, and where do you think it risks replacing it?
- What is one idea from this resource that you plan to take into your own classroom or learning context?
Summary of Your Thoughts:
Thank you to everyone who explored our OER and shared such thoughtful feedback. Reading your reflections was every bit as valuable as creating the resource itself.
One of the strongest themes that emerged was the idea that AI should act as a thinking partner rather than an answer engine. Many of you highlighted the importance of ensuring students remain responsible for the reasoning, while AI supports learning through questioning, feedback, scaffolding, and reflection. The simple question, “Who is doing the thinking?” became a powerful lens for evaluating educational AI.
We also appreciated the discussion surrounding Vantage’s educational potential and long-term viability as a venture. The conversation highlighted an important tension explored throughout ETEC 522: educational innovation and commercial sustainability are closely connected, but they are not always the same challenge.
Perhaps our biggest takeaway is that generative AI has made teaching critical thinking more important than ever. Rather than diminishing its value, AI has reinforced the need to explicitly teach students how to question, evaluate evidence, reflect on their reasoning, and use technology to extend their thinking rather than replace it.
Thank you again for your insightful comments, thoughtful questions, and engaging discussion. Your perspectives strengthened our OER and reminded us that the future of AI in education will depend as much on thoughtful pedagogy and educators as it does on the technology itself.
Hi Critical Thinking team,
First: I absolutely love Vantage. It’s a fantastic idea that could provide real cognitive benefits to many students.
Second: In my opinion, it would never succeed or even be brought to market. Your SWOT analysis succinctly highlighted exactly the reasons, namely the fact that its main success metric is to make itself unnecessary. It’s unfortunate that a tool that could provide such incredible assistance to teachers and students, and help to reverse the cognitive offloading we’re experiencing, would likely be an immediate ‘no’ from investors and capitalists.
To address your question above:
“What is one idea from this resource that you plan to take into your own classroom or learning context?”
I found the structure you used for Vantage to be really enlightening, and a fantastic way to encourage critical thinking in my classroom. This combination of conditions and dispositions gives me a lot to consider. Most of these factors within each axis I’ve utilized before, but not with the express purpose of using them as distinct processes for developing critical thinking, and not in conjunction as you’ve presented it.
I would love to see a class curriculum based on the two Vantage axes, in which these are the skills meant to be taught through a separate academic medium (e.g. a course on Canadian history not meant to teach dates, events, and key players, but that presents opposing perspectives on events from those key players and asks learners to dissect arguments and strengthen critical thinking through discussion).
One question I have for you, however: do you see Vantage as being useful in all academic settings and curricula? Are there any areas in which critical thinking may be less valuable, for example in memorization-based learning (e.g. verb conjugation), or when a learner has to demonstrate some kind of systematic procedural knowledge?
Thanks, I really enjoyed your OER 🙂
Editor
Hi jlehu, your point about how there is little interest in a business that would be built to phase itself out is very insightful. We see this principle in many products. A good example is lightbulbs. They were having longer and longer lifetimes, which made companies lose money since this caused people to buy them less frequently. The lightbulb companies met and made a standard time they could last, and if the lightbulbs lasted longer that company would be fined. In this way they could guarantee a continued flow of profit.
You also propose an excellent question about procedural or memorization based thinking. When you think of systematic procedural knowledge or memorization, critical thinking is actually something that can enhance these processes. Critical thinking can allow you to see patterns and understand the context around what you are learning, which allows you to learn it faster. Additionally, critical thinking can help you make connections between knowledge, which allows you to better integrate the knowledge with what you already know, which allows you to retrieve it easier. Additionally, in a subject like math, you can learn a procedure of how to add, but really understanding the concept and why we do it a certain way will let you know when to use the procedure and in what contexts (Braithwaite & Sprague, 2021; Makhene, 2022).
Braithwaite, D. W., & Sprague, L. (2021). Conceptual Knowledge, Procedural Knowledge, and Metacognition in Routine and Nonroutine Problem Solving. Cognitive Science, 45(10), e13048-n/a. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.13048
Makhene, A. (2022). Use of Foundational Knowledge as a Basis to Facilitate Critical Thinking: Nurse Educators’ Perceptions. Nursing Research and Practice, 2022(Journal Article), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/3736322
I really appreciate both of these perspectives. As one of the creators of this OER, I found reading your comments just as valuable as the process of developing the resource itself.
The comments about Vantage’s viability as an investment particularly resonated with me. Throughout ETEC 522, I have found it challenging to balance educational innovation with the realities of building a sustainable venture. Those are related goals, but they are not always aligned. Ironically, one of Vantage’s greatest strengths is its goal of developing more independent thinkers. While that is a compelling educational outcome, it also raises important questions about how a venture designed to make itself less necessary over time can demonstrate long-term commercial sustainability.
I also appreciated the discussion around procedural knowledge and critical thinking. I do not see them as competing priorities. Students need foundational knowledge before they can think critically, and one of the goals of critical thinking is to help students transfer and apply that knowledge in new contexts (Barnett & Ceci, 2002). In many ways, that is where I think AI has the greatest potential, not to replace thinking, but to extend it by providing feedback, challenging reasoning, and encouraging students to apply their learning in new situations.
What this discussion has really left me wondering is whether the challenge lies with Vantage itself or with the business model behind it. Perhaps the more interesting entrepreneurial question is not whether a tool like Vantage can attract investment, but what type of investment strategy or business model would allow an educational innovation designed to foster independent thinking to remain commercially sustainable. To me, that is one of the central tensions of educational entrepreneurship: the most meaningful educational outcomes do not always align with the metrics investors use to evaluate success. Finding a way to bridge those two priorities may ultimately determine whether innovations like Vantage can achieve both educational impact and commercial viability.
Reference
Barnett, S. M., & Ceci, S. J. (2002). When and where do we apply what we learn? A taxonomy for far transfer. Psychological Bulletin, 128(4), 612–637. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.128.4.612
Hey team!
Wow, what a comprehensive looking OER. I can’t wait to dive in, it looks like a lot of love was put into this.
Something that struck me with your launch post was the age-range that you propose this OER is useful for: educators for Grade 4 through post-secondary. I don’t see anything in the OER that explicitly mentions why it would be useful for educators of such a vast age differential. Surely there is some different approaches as to how to apply your theory and AI-leveraged critical thinking tactics based on age category? I’m sure we all agree that critical thinking is important for all ages, and anyone who could reliably work a tablet or computer could hypothetically have an AI assist them in reflection and metacognition, but does that mean they should all go about it the same way?
Curios of your thoughts 🙂 Thanks in advance.
Also, hoo-boy did I stink at the Thinking Continuum activity! I would mention that I had a number of difficulties selecting my final answers as some were multi-select and some were not, and some slides had answers that were hidden unless you scrolled down that I didn’t catch before answering. I think the activity itself is a great exercise, but the UI could use some more user-friendly tweaking.
Hi Jake,
I’m about halfway through the OER myself, so my thinking is still evolving, but your comment about the intended audience stood out to me because I had the same question.
As a Junior Kindergarten teacher in the IB PYP, I agree that the dispositions of critical thinking are important across all ages. However, I think the pedagogy would need to look different for a four-year-old than for a Grade 8 or post-secondary student.
In JK, we absolutely build critical thinking, perspective-taking, and metacognition, but we do it through play, picture books, guided inquiry, hands on learning and rich conversations rather than evaluating academic articles or debating AI policy. The thinking skills are transferable, but the instructional strategies, language, and scaffolds need to be developmentally appropriate. I’m interested to see where the second half of the OER leads.
To the Critical Thinking Team, one thing I noticed while working through the Genially Activity for The Critical Thinking Challenge, there was a small usability issue. On the “Who has a stake?” slide, the final stakeholder description is cut off on my screen because the text extends beyond the visible text box.
Looking forward to the second half. Have a great week everyone 🙂
Hello! Thank you for your helpful feedback. Quick question – did you scroll down in the Genially activity? I have added a short instruction to address this.
If that doesn’t work, please let me know!
Thank you!
Hi Cherri-Lynn,
In the Genially acticity, on the Change the Lens page when I click the INFO button for Who has a stake? – the last bullet point on the bottom right hand side “Student & Teacher: Bring daily classroom experience and academic needs to the table.”
That text is going beyond the text box and not easy to read. If I could send a screenshot here it would be more helpful. Minor fix but wanted to share.
Hello Jake,
Thanks so much! We really appreciate that. Our goal was to create an OER that was grounded in research while remaining practical and relevant for educators.
That’s a great question. We certainly aren’t suggesting that critical thinking or AI should be approached the same way from Grade 4 through post-secondary. Rather, our argument is that instructional practices that develop critical thinking remain consistent, while the levels of complexity, teacher scaffolding, and learner independence vary with students’ age, prior knowledge, and learning context. As Abrami et al. (2015) found in their meta-analysis, critical thinking is most effectively developed through explicit, evidence-based instructional practices. Those practices don’t change, but how we implement them certainly does.
For example, in Grade 4, a teacher might use AI to help students explain their thinking, ask guided questions, or compare simple ideas with significant teacher support. At the post-secondary level, students might use AI to critique arguments, evaluate evidence, consider multiple perspectives, or transfer their thinking to new contexts with much greater independence.
One of the key ideas we wanted to emphasize throughout the OER is that AI should extend thinking rather than replace it. That principle applies regardless of grade level, even though what it looks like in practice should be very different for a Grade 4 student than for a university student.
You’ve also highlighted an area where we could strengthen the resource. Including examples across different grade bands would help educators better visualize what these instructional practices look like in their own classrooms. Thanks for raising that. It’s definitely something to consider as we continue refining the OER.
Reference
Abrami, P. C., Bernard, R. M., Borokhovski, E., Waddington, D. I., Wade, C. A., & Persson, T. (2015). Strategies for teaching students to think critically: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 85(2), 275–314. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654314551063
Hi Jake,
Thank you for your observation! I’m sure you’ve had a chance by now to use Vantage and see how the AI chatbot employs different strategies for each age group using the 2-axis model.
Another question I anticipated coming up regarding age groups and critical thinking is why our team chose Grade 4 for beginning critical thinking practice with AI. Research for this OER surfaced Grade 4 as a meaningful threshold in Ontario’s language curriculum, where digital media literacy expectations ask students to navigate online spaces safely and responsibly, build knowledge using digital and media tools, and engage critically with media. Grade 4 also marks the transition from demonstrating understanding to explaining. This focus on critical thinking skills in provincial curricula seems to converge with other research that shows 86% of Canadian youth aged nine to eleven already hold an account on at least one social media platform with a minimum age of thirteen. One source, MediaSmarts, bands its own Digital Media Literacy Framework beginning at Grades 4–6, where lessons on distinguishing facts from opinions and constructing and evaluating arguments are initiated. (Brisson-Boivin & McAleese, 2022)
We had added this information to the OER to explain our choice of Grade 4 but ultimately removed it for the sake of keeping the OER as succinct as possible. Research and data on critical thinking, AI, social media, etc. is vast!
From what you’ve seen, is there a particular grade or age group where instruction in evaluating digital information tends to have the most impact?
Thanks again for your input and feedback!
References
Brisson-Boivin, K., & McAleese, S. (2022). Young Canadians in a wireless world, phase IV: Life online. MediaSmarts. https://mediasmarts.ca/sites/default/files/publication-report/full/life-online-report-en-final-11-22.pdf
Ontario Ministry of Education. (2023). The Ontario curriculum, grades 1–8: Language. King’s Printer for Ontario. https://www.dcp.edu.gov.on.ca/en/curriculum/elementary-language
Hi team- wow, what an amazing OER! A great follow-up to our last weeks topic too.
Here are my thoughts to your questions below:
How has AI changed the way you think about teaching critical thinking?:
Personally, I didn’t believe AI could play much of a role in teaching critical thinking. I remember when I was in university- one of my first year professors said, the point of university is to teach critical thinking. This really stuck with me- because at the moment I was undecided if pursuing postsecondary education was the path for me, or if university was worth it. Furthermore- I thought you needed a human agent to teach the critical thinking process, but now as we see, AI is becoming so advanced and can mimic what teachers would do in real-time to teach critical thinking to students. I really liked playing around with Vantage, and hearing the TEDTalk from Sal Khan on what Khanmigo can do for teaching critical thinking. They actually scaffolded and facilitated discussion so that students can develop their own opinions and build off of that rather than just giving them the answer.
Where do you see AI strengthening student thinking, and where do you think it risks replacing it?
It can strengthen student thinking if it actually scaffolds and facilitates student thinking rather than just feeding them the answer, as this creates cognitive dependence as we’ve learned. Similarly, if it’s not asking the right question prompts, or the student is not engaged in developing their own thoughts on something but just want the answer to them- then AI replaces student thinking.
What is one idea from this resource that you plan to take into your own classroom or learning context?
I would love to try Vantage in my class, or Khanmigo- as Khan said in the future every student should be able to have their own AI tutor. If it starts becoming more widespread in classrooms that we have the technology available to execute this, and the teacher training on implementing it in the classroom structure- I think it is an asset to have.
Thanks so much for taking the time to explore the OER and for such a thoughtful response.
I really connected with your point about originally believing that critical thinking required a human teacher. I think many educators have shared that assumption, and it’s one of the reasons AI has generated so much uncertainty in education. What has changed my thinking isn’t that AI can teach critical thinking on its own, but that it can support teachers in creating more opportunities for students to think critically.
I also appreciated your point about teacher training. Throughout this project, I’ve become convinced that the success of tools like Vantage or Khanmigo depends less on the technology itself and more on how teachers choose to use it. The same AI tool can either replace student thinking or extend it, depending on the prompts, the learning task, and the teacher’s instructional decisions.
Your comment also made me think about a recent book study we completed at the junior high school where I work. We read Dr. Jared Horvath’s The Digital Delusion, and one question that kept coming up was who should be using technology in the classroom and when. That discussion really challenged me to think beyond whether AI is “good” or “bad” and instead consider how teacher expertise influences its effectiveness.
From a Cognitive Load Theory perspective, experienced teachers have developed and automated many of the complex schemas involved in teaching, such as questioning strategies, lesson design, classroom management, and the facilitation of critical thinking (Sweller et al., 2019). Because these instructional decisions require less conscious effort, experienced teachers may have more cognitive capacity available to thoughtfully integrate AI into their teaching. In contrast, newer teachers are often still developing those foundational schemas, so introducing AI may add another layer of complexity rather than immediately enhancing instruction. That doesn’t mean beginning teachers shouldn’t use AI, but it does suggest they may need different kinds of support as they learn to integrate it effectively.
As an instructional coach, that’s the part that excites me most. I think the next challenge isn’t simply developing better AI tools; it’s helping educators develop the knowledge, confidence, and professional judgment to use them in ways that genuinely strengthen student thinking. Thanks again for sharing your perspective—it definitely gave me something to think about.
References
Sweller, J., van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. (2019). Cognitive architecture and instructional design: 20 years later. Educational Psychology Review, 31(2), 261–292. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09465-5
Horvath, J. (2025). The digital delusion. Cambridge University Press.
Hi Gheba,
Thank you for your personal insight on critical thinking and AI use. Your answer to the first question about critical thinking in post-secondary reminded me of one article we came across in our research on critical thinking in the era of AI: Can Colleges AI-Proof their Students? The article discussed how no model currently exists for teaching critical thinking skills in post-secondary. Nearly every institution’s mission statement invokes critical thinking, but almost no one specifies where it’s taught, what its components are, or how it’s measured. (Carlson, 2026) With misinformation widespread and generative AI reshaping how we think, teaching critical thinking early feels essential, especially when it comes to navigating digital and media tools.
Do you have any strategies for helping students employ critical thinking skills when navigating digital and media tools?
Reference
Carlson, S. (2026, July 10). Can colleges AI-proof their students? The Chronicle of Higher Education. https://www.chronicle.com/article/can-colleges-ai-proof-their-students
Hi everyone,
Great job on this resource! I really enjoyed working through all of the activities. I did have a bit of trouble with the second Genially quiz (AI in Education one). I was able to answer the first question without any issues, but it was difficult to select the answers for the remaining questions.
I especially appreciated the videos throughout the resource, as they helped explain the concepts and definitions in more depth and made the content easier to understand.
Here are my answers to your questions:
How has AI changed the way you think about teaching critical thinking?
Like I mentioned in the Google response, I have been skeptical about AI because I worry that it gives students answers too quickly without allowing them to come to their own conclusions. This is something I see in general, even with my Grade 1 and 2 students. They often want to give the answer without explaining how they arrived at it or providing evidence for their thinking. I think this is a challenge across all grade levels.
Working through this resource has changed the way I think about AI and critical thinking. It showed me that AI doesn’t have to provide the answers. Instead, it can scaffold learning by asking thoughtful questions and providing prompts that help students develop their own reasoning and arrive at their own conclusions.
Where do you see AI strengthening student thinking, and where do you think it risks replacing it?
I think AI can strengthen student thinking by scaffolding learning and asking questions that encourage students to think through a problem before arriving at an answer.
At the same time, I think AI risks replacing student thinking when it gives answers too quickly and students accept them at face value without questioning, evaluating, or explaining their reasoning.
What is one idea from this resource that you plan to take into your own classroom or learning context?
One idea I plan to take into my own classroom is using AI as a thinking partner rather than an answer-giver. I would love to use a tool like Vantage during my Grade 1 science unit on light and sound. Students could investigate questions such as how light helps us in our daily lives, how different materials affect light or sound, or how we can reduce noise pollution. I think Vantage would be a great fit because it could guide students with questions and prompts that encourage them to think critically, consider different ideas, and explain their reasoning instead of simply providing the answers.
Thank you so much for taking the time to work through the OER and for your thoughtful feedback. I also appreciated your note about the second Genially activity. That was a common concern, so we’ve now added a note to help clarify the issue.
Your observation that even Grade 1 and 2 students often want to give an answer without explaining how they reached it really resonated with me. I don’t think that’s just an AI challenge; it’s a learning challenge that spans all grade levels.
I saw this repeatedly when I taught RTI math. As soon as I asked questions like “How do you know?” or “Can you convince me?”, many students immediately assumed they had the wrong answer. Rather than explaining their reasoning, they would often change their answer because they interpreted my question as a signal that they had made a mistake. That experience really reinforced for me that we need to create classroom cultures where explaining our thinking is just as valued as arriving at the correct answer.
One of the reasons our team focused the OER on learners from approximately Grade 4 through first-year post-secondary was that many of the activities assume a level of reading independence and self-direction that is more typical of those learners. That doesn’t mean younger students can’t engage in critical thinking, only that the way AI supports that thinking would likely look quite different.
Hi Jodee,
Thank you for your detailed response. I do think your point that students shouldn’t take answers from AI at face value is important. The context of the AI use is just as important as which one we use, and it is our responsibility as teachers to explicitly teach these skills so they can be used to practice with the AI. One of these skills would be questioning statements from AI, but also from any source. In my grade 9 class I spend a week at the beginning of the year talking about how people can lie to you using statistics and graphs, when they do not represent them properly or the methods are not impartial. In the same way, it is important to teach students not only when to fact check AI, but also how to do so as well. This is why gathering data should always be the first step before any arguments are involved, as it forms a basis of what you are looking at and context to see which arguments are based in realistic facts. The advantage of Vantage is that each student will have their own opinion and Vantage will be able to individually challenge those beliefs in a way that a whole class discussion couldn’t or that a teacher would not have time to do one on one. It also relieves the pressure of a student stating a wrong answer or being judged for their stance.
I think your idea for Vantage is brilliant! I really enjoyed working through the activities, and I especially appreciated all of the infographics included throughout the OER. They made the information engaging and easy to follow.
One thing I struggled with is the Genially activity on the “Can AI Develop Critical Thinking?” page. Some questions required multiple selections, and I did not initially realize there were additional options further down the page until I scrolled. It may be helpful to remind users to scroll or indicate that more than one response may be required (or maybe it did but I missed it!)
Here is my reflection on your questions:
How has AI changed the way you think about teaching critical thinking?
AI has changed the way I think about teaching critical thinking because it has made the process of finding an answer almost effortless. As a junior high math teacher, I am now more careful in assessing how students arrive at an answer rather than only whether the final answer is correct. For example, if a student uses AI to solve a linear equation, I would want them to explain each step, identify whether the solution is reasonable, and compare the AI’s method with a strategy we learned in class.
Where do you see AI strengthening student thinking, and where do you think it risks replacing it?
I see AI strengthening student thinking when it is used to provide feedback, generate alternative approaches, or prompt students to explain their reasoning. For example, students could ask AI to show two different ways to solve a problem and then evaluate which method is more efficient. However, AI risks replacing critical thinking when students copy a solution without understanding it or accept an incorrect response just because it appears well-written.
What is one idea from this resource that you plan to take into your own classroom or learning context?
One idea that reflects what I have been slowly implementing into my classroom is the approach proposed through Vantage. Instead of immediately solving a problem, Vantage could ask students purposeful questions such as, “What information do you already know?”, “What strategy might work?”, or “How could you check your answer?” For example, in my Grade 9 math class, a student working on an inequality might be guided to explain why the inequality symbol changes when multiplying by a negative number. This type of scaffolding would encourage students to persevere, reflect on their reasoning, and gradually become more independent thinkers rather than relying on AI to do the cognitive work for them.
Thank you for your feedback and insight, Dorlen.
It’s great to read in your post that Vantage has changed the way you see AI tools. When we were designing Vantage, we thought a lot about at how we could design the app to ask questions to spur the learner’s thinking without going totally “Socratic” and not providing any answers. Vantage is a good middle ground between AI tools that provide the answer right away and those that question too much (which would get annoying after a while).
What you mentioned about explaining your thinking in math reminds me of something my niece told me about her math studies, how she and her classmates rely on their calculators and aren’t really asked to explain their thinking. I think this create overconfidence in a subject without really having any knowledge. This is where the intellectual dispositions, like courage and perseverence, come in for critical thinking and how they are so important. Some of them, like humility, might occur naturally if we implemented the seven conditions.
Are there any of the seven conditions (background knowledge, modeling expert thinking, purposeful questioning, discussion, feedback, metacognition, and scaffolding toward independence) that you feel are especially important in your math teaching?
Thanks again for your thoughtful post!
Edith
Hi Edith, Jessica, Cherri-Lynn, and Logan (Critical Thinking Team),
First, let me say how much I enjoyed working through your OER. Over the past three weeks, we’ve explored many different AI opportunities, but I really appreciated how your project aimed to answer two fundamental questions:
-What conditions actually develop critical thinking?
-What would an AI environment look like if it were intentionally designed around those conditions?
Creating Vantage felt like a genuinely research-informed opportunity rather than just another AI tutor. I also appreciated your willingness to innovate. Rather than proposing an improvement to an existing AI tutor, you reimagined what an AI learning environment could look like if it were intentionally designed around how critical thinking develops. Whether every feature is technically feasible today or not, I think the proposal successfully pushes the conversation forward.
To answer your discussion questions, AI has reinforced for me that teaching critical thinking is becoming even more important rather than less. I see the greatest opportunity when AI is used to challenge reasoning, introduce alternative perspectives, provide feedback, and encourage reflection. However, it begins to replace thinking when it generates conclusions, removes productive struggle, or eliminates the need for students to justify their own ideas. Your continuum showing the shift from AI doing the thinking to AI extending thinking captured that distinction exceptionally well.
One idea I will take back into my own work is the question, “Who is doing the thinking?” As someone who supports AI implementation across K–12, I think that’s one of the most valuable questions educators can ask when evaluating any AI tool or classroom activity. Rather than focusing on whether AI is being used, we should be asking whether learners are still engaging in the reasoning, reflection, and decision-making that lead to meaningful learning.
One idea that continued to resonate with me as I worked through your OER was Vantage’s goal of eventually making itself unnecessary. From an educational perspective, I think that’s exactly what we should want. However, it also raises an interesting implementation question: How would we know when that has actually happened? Better written responses or stronger arguments don’t necessarily tell us whether students have developed more sophisticated reasoning or simply become better at interacting with the AI. It seems we would also need ways of measuring learner independence, metacognition, and the transfer of critical thinking to situations where AI isn’t available.
Thank you for creating such a thoughtful and engaging OER. I really enjoyed exploring your vision for Vantage! 🙂
Hi Samantha,
I totally agree that we need critical thinking more than ever these days as we seem to be inundated by misinformation and misleading data online not to mention people in higher, authoritative positions that sometimes share it, perpetuating its spread. I also agreed with your point that we need to teach critical thinking skills even outside of AI use. My question would be, how exactly do we teach critical thinking? It would be great to have a model that teachers and professors could follow.
Which components do you think would be most essential for teaching critcal thinking? Would you employ any particular teaching strategies?
Thank you for your post!
Edith
Hi Critical Thinking Team,
Just a quick heads-up as I’m continuing through the OER. In the “Now, give Community-Member created Mizou Chat Bots a test drive” section, I wasn’t able to access any of the three linked chatbots (EU Leaders Debate, Professional Networking Role-Play, or Reading Detective). The links don’t seem to be working for me.
I wanted to flag it in case the links need to be updated.
Thanks!
Hi dmouton, thank you for letting us know. We have all tried the links and they seem to be working. Do you have any extra details you could provide so we can help get this working for you?
Hi Critical Thinking Team,
Thank you for your work and engagement this week. I appreciated the combination of research, interactive activities, and the opportunity to explore a proposed AI learning environment through Vantage.
One question stayed with me throughout the resource. I really like the two-axis framework, but I wonder if schools would need to adopt more than just the AI. Developing critical thinking and metacognition requires a shared language, teacher modelling, authentic, hands-on learning experiences, and a culture of reflection embedded across the curriculum. Those conditions develop over time through professional learning and a school-wide commitment to teaching and learning.
Could a school simply adopt Vantage, or would it also need to adopt the educational philosophy behind it? For me, AI has the greatest potential when it strengthens an existing culture of inquiry and critical thinking rather than trying to create one on its own.
Finally, your OER reinforced a question I’ve been thinking about throughout the past few weeks. How does a tool like Vantage fit within the broader school ecosystem? Can personal AI tutors scale in a way that supports both students and teachers, or does it risk becoming another platform that requires educators to manage dozens of individual student logins, dashboards, and workflows?
Hi Denise,
You raised an excellent question about actual implementation of Vantage from both a practical and philosophical sense. I agree that it would be very helpful for teaching staff at a school to understand on a deep level and practice already those conditions and dispositions of the two-axis system. That way, students would be set up for success upon using Vantage and teachers would be in a better position to see if those conditions and dispositions are being met properly through AI. It would be awesome if the philosophy was already a part of the school’s ethos.
From a practical sense, we haven’t really throught that far about how Vantage would be implemented in a way that was ethical (in terms of privacy and data protection, etc.) but not cumbersome for teachers. This would be another worthy consideration in our SWOT analysis.
Thank you for your insight!
Edith
Hi team!
First off, I really loved working through your OER! The activities were engaging, and creating Vantage as a way for us to explore the ideas presented was a brilliant design choice. I found that my thinking about critical thinking and AI changed significantly as I worked my way through your site. To be honest, prior to this experience, I viewed AI more as a barrier to critical thinking and something I needed to compensate for in my teaching. However, after exploring your site and particularly the idea of Vantage, shifted my perspective. The idea of an AI partner that develops all eight intellectual traits by not simply giving students the correct answer, but by working as a guide to help them develop these skills through the 7 learning conditions, was compelling.
I do believe the future holds the development of educational AI partners that will work for students in the way you have outlined. However, I still worry about the readily available generative AI tools that many students have access to at home. Whether it is driven by pressure to receive high grades, feeling overwhelmed with too many activities, or simply taking the easiest route, I think that many students will continue to rely on generative AI for answers, regardless of the tool being used in the classroom.
The biggest question I kept asking myself this week was, how do we bridge the gap between what is economically viable from a business standpoint, and what is pedagogically necessary from an educational standpoint? Educational AI like Vantage prioritizes learning over efficiency, but most commercial AI products prioritize speed, convenience, and user satisfaction. Ultimately, students will have access to all the tools available when they are working on assignments at home. How do we encourage the development of AI that values learning as much as productivity?
Thanks again for an awesome learning experience!
Thank you for taking the time to work through our OER, Megan. You raise a really important question when you ask how we bridge the gap between what is economically viable from a business perspective and what is pedagogically necessary from an educational one.
I think this is one of the biggest challenges facing education right now. Commercial AI is largely designed to maximize efficiency, convenience, and user satisfaction, while good teaching often requires students to slow down, grapple with ideas, and engage in productive cognitive struggle. Those goals aren’t always aligned.
Willingham (2021) argues that people are naturally curious but not naturally inclined to think deeply because sustained thinking is cognitively demanding. AI capitalizes on that tendency by providing immediate answers, whereas developing knowledge and critical thinking requires learners to persist through that cognitive effort. That tension makes this a particularly difficult challenge for educators.
In some ways, I wonder if this is similar to the debate surrounding calculators. There were genuine concerns that students would become dependent on them and fail to develop essential mathematical skills. Over time, the conversation shifted from whether calculators should be used to when and how they should be used to support learning. While generative AI presents a much greater challenge because it can automate aspects of thinking rather than simply computation, I think the underlying question is similar: how do we use technology to extend learning without replacing the thinking students need to do themselves?
That gives me hope. If we can design AI experiences like Vantage that harness students’ curiosity and invite them into the thinking, rather than doing the thinking for them, then perhaps we can begin to bridge that gap.
I also wonder whether the real opportunity for educational AI companies is not to compete with general-purpose AI on speed, but to differentiate themselves by demonstrating better long-term learning outcomes. If that’s the future, how do we convince students and investors that learning is a feature worth paying for?
Reference
Willingham, D. T. (2021). Why don’t students like school? A cognitive scientist answers questions about how the mind works and what it means for the classroom (2nd ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Great job on this OER! I really enjoyed working through it. Everything flowed really well, and I appreciated how each activity built on the last to support the overall message.
How has AI changed the way you think about teaching critical thinking?
I really enjoyed how this OER connected with the previous two by moving beyond evaluating existing AI tools to proposing what an AI environment intentionally designed for critical thinking could look like. Rather than focusing on a single feature, the two-axis framework demonstrated that developing critical thinking requires attention to both how thinking develops and who the thinker becomes. I found this to be a much richer way of evaluating educational AI than simply asking whether a tool gives good feedback or asks good questions.
Where do you see AI strengthening student thinking, and where do you think it risks replacing it?
I see AI strengthening student thinking when it creates the conditions for critical thinking to develop, such as through purposeful questioning, timely feedback, metacognition, and scaffolding toward independence. Tools like Khanmigo demonstrate this well by using the Socratic method to guide students without immediately providing answers. I also really liked the idea from the video of AI serving as a “sparring partner” challenging students’ thinking rather than doing the thinking for them. At the same time, AI risks replacing student thinking when it optimizes only for the correct answer, reducing opportunities for students to wrestle with ideas, justify their reasoning, or reflect on how their thinking has changed. As the OER suggests, the goal should be to keep the cognitive work with the learner, allowing AI to function as a thinking environment rather than an answer engine.
What is one idea from this resource that you plan to take into your own classroom or learning context?
Perhaps my biggest takeaway was the emphasis on the Socratic method. Watching how Khanmigo guides students through questioning rather than simply giving answers reinforced the importance of helping students develop the habit of thinking through problems for themselves. Whether AI is involved or not, I think this is a practice worth cultivating from an early age. If students regularly learn to justify their reasoning, question assumptions, and reflect on their thinking, they’ll be better equipped to navigate a world where answers are increasingly only a prompt away.
One question I was left wondering about is how teachers will know when AI is asking enough questions versus too many. At what point does a thinking partner become frustrating rather than supportive, and how do we strike that balance?
Many thanks!
Thank you for taking the time to work through our OER and for reflecting so thoughtfully on the questions we posed. Your final question really stuck with me.
I honestly don’t know what the right balance is yet, but I wonder if this is where AI has the greatest potential. Tools like ChatGPT are already beginning to learn about individual users over time. If educational AI can eventually understand what a student knows, where they’re struggling, and how they’re responding, perhaps it will become better at knowing when to ask another question, when to offer a hint, and when it’s time to simply let the student move on. I’m not sure we’re there yet, but I think that’s where this technology is heading.
What really resonated with me is that this is exactly what experienced teachers do every day. As we get to know our students and develop a deep understanding of the curriculum, the quality, timing, and quantity of our questions naturally change. Sometimes students need another probing question. Sometimes they need more scaffolding. Other times they simply need us to step back and let them think. Good questioning has never been about asking more questions—it’s about asking the right question at the right time.
That idea reminds me of Vygotsky’s (1978) concept of the Zone of Proximal Development and what we know about effective scaffolding. The best support isn’t fixed; it changes as learners grow (Van de Pol et al., 2010). I wonder if that’s the next challenge for educational AI, not simply generating thoughtful questions, but developing the instructional judgment to know when to question, when to scaffold, and when to step aside.
If AI can eventually do that well, it has the potential to become a genuine thinking partner rather than just another tool that provides answers.
References
Van de Pol, J., Volman, M., & Beishuizen, J. (2010). Scaffolding in teacher–student interaction: A decade of research. Educational Psychology Review, 22(3), 271–296.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
Hi Mike,
I’m so happy that you enjoyed our OER and proposal of a new AI system that deals specifically with critical thinking building.
We struggled with the same question as you regarding how much support an AI tool should provide a student before disclosing an answer. We “calibrated” Vantage not not be a tool that simply performs the Socratic method of questioning (which would become irritating after a while), but to be more of a conversation partner, spurring the conversation into different directions with data, feedback, and different viewpoints.
To Cherry-Lynn’s point about the Zone of Proximal Development (VPD), this is definitely something an AI tool specifically for learning should take into consideration. When students are given answers without being guided to them through their own reasoning, they miss the opportunity of building critical thinking skills and those dispositions of humility, fair-mindedness, autonomy, etc. Vantage is designed for different grade levels and calibrated to be “challenging enough” for students in those grades to gradually construct knowledge, as critical thinking demands.
Thank you for your feedback and insightful points!
Edith
Thank you for the interesting and engaging module–here’s my responses to the discussion questions!
How has AI changed the way you think about teaching critical thinking?
-I’ve been concerned about the long-term impact of AI on critical thinking skills. I think that what we can do without access to a computer is a good gauge of where we’re at, so what does this mean for critical thinking? I worry that long-term AI dependence can impact decision-making skills.
Where do you see AI strengthening student thinking, and where do you think it risks replacing it?
-Just giving the answers can risk replacing student thinking. I think the interesting point of this opportunity forecast is looking at ways we can extend or expand upon thinking by using AI.
What is one idea from this resource that you plan to take into your own classroom or learning context?
– Even with the standard AI which provides content and answers, I see a wealth of information and ways that AI tutors can support students. I think this module provided me with another perspective of how we can use AI to encourage critical thinking. I’d like to explore chatbot tools such as Mizou and AI that uses Socratic questioning to see if I can encourage students to engage in critical thinking more.
Hi kanemerc,
I understand and share your worry about AI dependence and its impact on decision making skills. AI is a tool that was widely introduced to the population, but that no one was really taught how to use. Like any tool that is introduced to education, AI requires the right context and the right time to use it, just like how googling information about a topic has a time and place in the classroom. The important thing is to train as many teachers as possible on how to use this tool properly to develop the critical thinking skills needed, and to make those critical thinking skills transferable to multiple situations. The key is to focus on process over product. If students have the opportunity to build something with AI and had it in, then a lot of them will. Some because they don’t want to complete the assignment, some because they are worried about marks, and some because they don’t think they have the time to do it properly. They key is to use AI to help them refine the process instead of the product, and to have them show evidence of their process along the way. Additionally, having students use metacognition through asking them why they wrote something or used AI in a certain way or why they accepted the AI revision allows them to build critical thinking in different ways. At the end of the day, AI is a tool that has been widely introduced and can have a lot of consequences, but any tool can be used poorly or well, and it is up to us to push for the correct use of this tool in the future.
Thank you to the team for building such a research-grounded and forward-thinking OER. I always feel anxious about the overuse of AI as an instructional designer, and I now completely understand where my anxiety is coming from. I personally did not have a good framework to articulate why it concerned me until reading this. I now learnt that with the support of AI, we easily bypass the “productive struggle” rather than scaffold it.
Here are my reflections on your discussion questions:
1. How AI has changed the way I think about teaching critical thinking:
It has shifted my design focus away from passive information delivery toward active, scenario-based problem-solving. In the workplace, real-world performance requires nuanced judgment in gray areas, not memorization. This resource highlighted that critical thinking lives entirely in the process—how learners evaluate trade-offs, question assumptions, and navigate complexity—rather than in generating a final polished product.
2. Where AI strengthens vs. risks replacing thinking:
AI strengthens thinking when integrated into safe-to-fail practice grounds as a Socratic partner that forces employees to justify decisions, audit risk, and explore competing priorities. It risks replacing thinking when leveraged as a quick-answer shortcut, causing cognitive offloading and skipping the deep processing employees need to build true decision-making confidence.
3. One idea I plan to take into my own context:
The concept of “Calibrated Doubt”. To move past standard “click-next” compliance modules, I plan to design workplace scenarios where an AI intentionally embeds subtle policy flaws, misstated data, or unexamined assumptions. Forcing employees to actively audit and push back against these errors bridges the gap between training and real-world execution.
Hi unidon,
I am glad that you emphasized how AI can create safe to fail areas, as learning happens best when students feel safe. I also appreciate how your implementation idea taps into productive struggle through error spotting of AI outputs, while also training people to question AI to make sure that its outputs are correct. As you mentioned, real world situations have complexity and are multidimensional, and people not only need to be trained on how to critically think, but when to critically think as well. Humans make assumptions about things because it is a survival mechanism that allows us to make decisions quickly without having to process lots of data, but this can also harm us if we don’t question our assumptions. As a result of this process being automatic, a person needs to learn how to use their critical thinking skills in situations where they have already built these automatic assumptions, as build habits of using this critical thinking.
Hey team,
Great OER, loved Vantage and the traits that it focusses on, and thank you for introducing me to Mizou!
1. How has AI changed the way you think about teaching critical thinking?
AI has shown me that teaching critical thinking is more important than ever. Students need to question, evaluate, and verify AI-generated information rather than simply accepting it as correct.
2. Where do you see AI strengthening student thinking, and where do you think it risks replacing it?
AI strengthens thinking by providing feedback, generating ideas, and supporting learning. However, it risks replacing critical thinking when students rely on it to do the analysis or problem-solving for them.
3. What is one idea from this resource that you plan to take into your own classroom or learning context?
I was introduced to Mizou, and I plan to share it with my staff and explore ways to use it in classrooms. I think it has great potential to create engaging AI-supported learning while still encouraging students to think independently.
Thank you for creating such an engaging and thought-provoking resource. This week’s topic was one of my favorite subjects, and I really enjoyed exploring it. The content was practical, research-informed, and answered many of my questions about the relationship between AI and critical thinking.
AI has changed the way I think about teaching critical thinking. Before exploring this OER, I often saw AI as a tool that could easily replace student thinking. Now I see that its impact depends on how it is designed and used. AI can strengthen critical thinking when it encourages questioning, discussion, reflection, feedback, and metacognition instead of simply providing answers. The idea of using AI as a thinking partner rather than an answer generator was especially meaningful to me.
I believe AI strengthens learning when it asks purposeful questions, challenges assumptions, presents different perspectives, and encourages students to explain and justify their reasoning. However, it begins to replace thinking when it removes productive struggle or encourages students to accept answers without evaluation. My biggest takeaway from this resource is the simple question: “Who is doing the thinking?” I plan to use this question whenever I design learning activities or evaluate AI tools. If students are still reasoning, reflecting, making decisions, and transferring their learning to new situations, then AI is extending thinking rather than replacing it.
One small suggestion is about the design of the interactive questions. At first, I found it a little confusing to know which answers I had selected. Later I realized that selected options turn green while unselected ones keep a white border.
Hi Manouchehr,
Thank you for your thoughts and feedback on our OER for this week!
Many people rightfully see AI tools as destructive forces to critical thinking skills. I’m glad that Vantage has given you a new perspective and some insight on how these tools can be utilized to build critical thinking skills, when used thoughtfully and purposefully.
I would be curious to know your thoughts on the second axis of our model, “who the thinker becomes.” Do you think the eight dispositions are important elements in the design of an AI tool for critical thinking? Or, do you think those traits can develop “naturally” when just following the seven conditions from the first axis?
Edith
Hi everyone,
Great work on the OER this week.
I thought you brought up some really compelling ideas. I especially liked that idea that how the thinking develops is equally important to who the thinker becomes, and that there are specific algorithmic inputs that AI can use to ensure both are being considered throughout the teaching of the critical thinking process.
I have also added a few thoughts based on your discussion questions below:
How has AI changed the way you think about teaching critical thinking?
I don’t think I would say that AI has changed the way I think about teaching critical thinking but I would say that this OER has made me see that AI has the potential to teach critical thinking in a measurable way. Before working through this OER I thought of critical thinking as simply not accepting everything that you see and hear at face value, but instead asking lots of questions to determine the accuracy, legitimacy, trustworthiness, and bias of all information you are presented with. And it was something that either you did or didn’t do.
I now understand that critical thinking can be looked at as a step-by-step process, and that AI can be programmed to help a learner to follow these steps to ensure that critical thinking is actually taking place.
What is one idea from this resource that you plan to take into your own classroom or learning context?
One idea that I really liked from the OER and would take into my teaching context is the idea of breaking the critical thinking process down into a sequence of steps and following these steps with learners in multiple contexts.
One idea that specifically jumped out at me was the idea that the difficulty of each step can be turned up or down depending on what level the learner is at. For example with “calibrated doubt”, I like the idea that although errors can, and should, be intentionally added to information to train students to identify it and pick it out, the obviousness of the errors can be adjusted depending on grade level (i.e. explicitly telling students there will be an error in the next sentence for grade four students, vs. sprinkling subtle errors in throughout the information for first year university students).
Like any skill that is scaffolded across grade levels however, it is important that proper vertical alignment is happening within schools. If students are not getting the right training in critical thinking in the lower grades, it will be a very big adjustment for them, and possibly an overcomable frustration, if inaccuracies are sprinkled into the information they are presented with in high school and university without warning.
Whether the critical thinking process is taught by AI, by humans, or by a combination of both, it is good to have this type of standardized guide to follow. This should be implemented across all grade levels and subject areas to ensure that our future population is capable of high levels of critical thought, especially in a world where reality and fabrication are becoming harder and harder to differentiate between.
Hi Bryce,
I was in the same boat as you before working on this OER in terms of not knowing the full scope of what entails critical thinking. I really loved the philosphers Paul and Elders’ expansion of the definition of critical thinking with their eight intellectual traits. (as cited in Hughes, 2024) We tend to forget that building those traits makes us better thinkers by considering different perspectives instead trying to find holes, like Socrates is notorious for doing! (Hughes, 2024)
I’m really glad you enjoyed our OER and found the research as interesting as we did!
Edith
Reference
Hughes, C. (2024, February 23). Critical thinking and generative artificial intelligence. UNESCO International Bureau of Education. https://www.ibe.unesco.org/en/articles/critical-thinking-and-generative-artificial-intelligence
Bryce and Edith,
I really enjoyed reading both of your posts. Bryce, I appreciated your point that this OER helped reframe critical thinking as a process that can be intentionally scaffolded. Edith, I also liked your reminder that Paul and Elder’s intellectual traits show that critical thinking is about more than just questioning information—it’s also about developing the habits of good thinkers.
Together, your posts reinforced something I’ve been thinking about throughout this course: AI has real potential to support critical thinking, but only if it’s used to extend students’ thinking rather than do the thinking for them. Like Bryce, I think scaffolding that gradually changes as learners develop is key. At the same time, as Edith pointed out, we also need to intentionally cultivate the intellectual traits that help students become thoughtful, reflective learners.
One thing I keep coming back to is that many school divisions are currently developing approved AI tools and usage guidelines for students and teachers. Those decisions are often driven by important considerations such as privacy, security, and data governance. While those issues absolutely matter, I don’t think decisions about AI can be made on those factors alone. They also need to be informed by pedagogy and research. If our goal is to improve teaching and learning, then understanding how AI can meaningfully support critical thinking should be just as important as determining which tools are safe to use.
Perhaps rather than critical thinking itself, AI has made me think more about how important it is to teach students to think critically about AI and how they use it. I also found the importance of teaching media literacy to be more critical than ever. Students are taking in so much information, but they may not always have the opportunity to slow down and think about, question, or make sense of the information they are receiving.
I have also noticed that students often have an easy time expressing or articulating their opinions but have a harder time explaining why they think that way. I wonder if this could also reflect a lack of critical thinking. Could it be connected to being inundated with information but not having enough opportunities to process, question, and think deeply about it?
I can see AI extending students’ thinking in many ways when it is used with intention, such as the examples in the OER about translating and teaching culture. It can introduce different perspectives, support inquiry, and help students explore their ideas more deeply.
On the other hand, AI can replace students’ thinking when it removes the effort that is needed for learning to stick. If students turn to AI for answers before they have had a chance to think through a question, struggle with an idea, or make their own connections, they may miss an important part of the learning process. I think the challenge is finding ways to use AI to extend students’ thinking without taking away the productive effort that supports deeper learning and long-term memory.
I think the thinking continuum will be a helpful anchor or reference that I can come back to—or simply keep in mind—when students are using AI in the classroom. It gives me a way to think about whether AI is supporting and extending students’ thinking or doing the thinking for them.
On top of that, I have also found some handy tools that I could use in my classroom, such as Vantage. I saw Vantage as a strong tool for inquiry learning and projects. Students could begin with a question they genuinely care about and use AI as a conversation partner rather than simply an answer tool. AI could ask follow-up questions, challenge their assumptions, introduce different perspectives, and encourage them to think more deeply about their ideas. The learning begins with the student’s own curiosity, while AI helps extend and deepen their thinking.
Hi Critical Thinking Team,
Really well done on this OER. The two axis framework, pairing the conditions that help thinking develop with the dispositions a thinker has to actually build on, got me thinking about who really is doing the thinking and what that looks like. If the use of AI and how critical thinking takes place is framed this way, I feel that the whole conversation shifts to being less about whether AI belongs in education and more about whether the actual thinking is still landing with the learner.
It was fascinating to see the OECD trial data comparing how well students did with AI support during practice, and then how they performed once it was dropped completely during exams. I thought that was particularly interesting because it highlights the risk that we might be mistaking task completion for an actual skill. Closing the gap in these scores is exactly the kind of work metacognition and critical thinking can help with, but designing a process to achieve this might not happen easily when AI can generate an answer so quickly.
Still, I think there can be a balance of value with the potential of AI acting more like a thinking partner to encourage and provoke critical thinking habits, rather than just being an answer engine. That said, the Thinking Trail idea stood out to me as being highly useful. I know that I value being able to look at the reasoning behind things: where the claim came from, what evidence got weighed, and where the person’s thinking actually moved and why. Combining that with Calibrated Doubt, where students are told upfront that mistakes are intentionally planted to reward questioning the system through an application of critical thinking rather than punishing them for getting it wrong, is a brilliant way to reframe how students interact with both AI and information in general.
Hello,
I really liked your point about AI acting as a thinking partner rather than simply an answer engine. I think that’s where its greatest educational potential lies.
Reading your post also left me wondering about something. Do you think the rapid growth of generative AI has actually caused educators to place a greater emphasis on teaching critical thinking than we did in the past? Critical thinking has always been an educational goal, but I wonder if AI has made us more intentional about explicitly teaching the process rather than simply expecting students to develop it over time.
If that’s true, perhaps one unexpected benefit of AI is that it has prompted us to reconsider not only how we use technology, but also how we teach students to evaluate, question, and reason in an increasingly complex information landscape.
Hi Critical Thinking and AI Team!
Great job on putting together this OER on the role educational AI should play in building critical thinking skills.
What stood out to me most was your framing of habits of mind, the building blocks for cultivating strong thinkers, as “a way of being rather than a procedure to be run,” and the foundational goal of making Vantage unnecessary by design, tracked directly through the Independence Meter feature, rather than a policy that just says so.
How has AI changed the way you think about teaching critical thinking?
This OER has inspired me to be far more intentional about how I’ll approach building critical thinking and metacognition into K-12 math instruction, not just to strengthen conceptual understanding, but to instill transferable cognitive habits for independent learning.
Where do you see AI strengthening student thinking, and where do you think it risks replacing it?
As others have already mentioned, I think tool design is what really determines the outcome here, strengthening critical thinking when it supports the conditions for genuine thinking through purposeful questioning, feedback, and reflection, and replacing it in the absence of that.
This also makes me think even the best design for autonomous systems may not survive contact with a bored or checked-out student. A thinking partner as thoughtfully designed as Vantage may still need a ‘human in the loop’ for disengaged students assigned to the tool.
What is one idea from this resource that you plan to take into your own classroom or learning context?
I plan on placing more emphasis on metacognition and critical thinking skill building in my math instruction, encouraging students to reflect on the thinking that led them to an answer or got them stuck, and building the habit of considering alternate pathways they could take next time, essentially autonomy and perseverance habits of mind.
Hi neonatal,
I like how you mentioned the difficulty in using these tools with disengaged students. Out products should not be built to only service the best students, but all students. This is especially important because the disengaged students need critical thinking just as much as any other student. In reality, the teacher brings context the the AI tools use and the way you present it and how long you use it for and only a few of the many factors that influence how well the tool performs. I felt that the thing you said at the end of your post summed it up nicely; that it is important to build habits of critical thinking and when we use them. An ability to critically think is not useful if it is not used in the first place.
Hi neonatal,
Thank you for sharing your thoughts. It’s wonderful that you are inspired to implement some of the seven conditions and foster a few of the dispositions in your math instruction! I liked your ideas for fostering metacognition, for example, by having students reflect on their thoughts processes when solving a math problem. I think small but meaningful opportunities like these in class can set a good example for transfering that same thinking habit to other disciplines and to life in general. Our minds are so maleable, which can go in positive and negative directions (as we briefly showed in our OER with the study on misuse of AI in math). With Vantage, we wanted our AI tool to cultivate strong thinkers and well rounded, good people. It’s so great to hear from you that you value developing critical thinking skills with your students!
Edith
How has AI changed the way you think about teaching critical thinking?
Many programs that historically focused on skills training now have to focus on developing critical thinking skills as well as a general willingness and ability to adapt over time. The more uncertain the future is and the more complicated and conflicting the opinions about where things might be headed, the more essential critical thinking becomes. With AI, uncertainty is the new certainty, so critical thinking skills are now more important that any job-specific skill a student can acquire.
Where do you see AI strengthening student thinking, and where do you think it risks replacing it?
What AI does or doesn’t do is a function of how the user engages with it. Design of the tool matters in terms of what it nudges the user to do or not do, but in the end it will be students’ ability to connect the decisions they make in the moment with their long-term goals that will mostly determine whether their use of AI strengthens or weakens their critical thinking faculties.
What is one idea from this resource that you plan to take into your own classroom or learning context?
The feedback question on the Vantage padlet got me thinking about a different conception of critical thinking. I’m going to do more research into the idea that critical thinking isn’t just mastering a set of individual skills but mastering the meta-skill of balancing the tension between those elements when there are contradictions or trade-off complexities in the situation one is thinking critically about. I also want to explore the connection between that idea and the process literacy required for systems thinking because thinking critically about something in isolation will still result in misleading conclusions.
Hi John,
I like how you emphasize how what AI does results from how you interact with it. AI a tool and, just like any tool, how you use it will determine the result. If you use it thoughtfully and check the results in a meaningful way, then it is useful. If you use is haphazardly and do not check the results, then it can be harmful. This is why it is important to teach students good habits when they are using AI so that it becomes a useful tool instead of a harmful one. Additionally, your mention of how critical thinking in isolation can lead to misleading conclusions is another thing to keep in mind. If students don’t have the data to make critical conclusions, you either need to provide them that information, or teach them to spot when they need information and how to gather it.
Great points, John and Logan. To build on both of your thoughts, I think the sheer volume of information available today makes this even more important. We need to teach students not only how to evaluate information, but why that process matters. As search engines, social media, and AI increasingly personalize the information we encounter, it becomes easier to remain within familiar perspectives without realizing it.
I also think this has made critical thinking more challenging to apply consistently for people of all ages and levels of expertise because our information environments increasingly shape what we see, often without our awareness. Research suggests that these algorithmic environments, combined with our own cognitive biases, can reinforce existing beliefs and limit meaningful engagement with alternative viewpoints (Kitchens et al., 2020; Talamanca et al., 2022).
Perhaps this is another reason to view critical thinking as a meta-skill: helping students recognize when their own thinking is being shaped by their information environment, intentionally seek diverse perspectives, and remain open to revising their understanding in light of new evidence.
References
Kitchens, B., Johnson, S. L., & Gray, P. (2020). Understanding echo chambers and filter bubbles: The impact of social media on diversification and partisan shifts in news consumption. MIS Quarterly, 44(4), 1619–1649.
Talamanca, G. F., Arfini, S., & Chella, A. (2022). Rethinking Filter Bubbles and Echo Chambers. Topoi.
I really enjoyed working through your OER! What a fantastic resource!
I see AI strengthening student thinking when it acts as a guide that prompts students to explain their ideas and examine their reasoning. The questioning approach in Vantage shows how AI can encourage reflection rather than provide information. I do think there is always a risk that students may rely on AI to generate the questions and thinking process for them.
One idea I would take from this resource is the importance of breaking critical thinking into smaller, more manageable steps. Vantage shows how students can move from understanding a concept, to explaining their ideas, to considering evidence and other perspectives. I think this approach has helped me understand that critical thinking is achievable for learners when they are provided with the right supports and guidance. Rather than expecting students to immediately analyze complex issues independently, educators can help them develop these skills through intentional questioning and reflection.
This is a fantastic OER that really digs into the roots of critical thinking. If Vantage was brought up maybe two or three years ago, I would think of it as a complete impossibility. AI could integrate with minimal facets of critical thinking, but it really wasn’t at the level to make a real difference or provide an access point that learners could really utilize. Now…I am second-guessing what is possible. If the technology is developing to the point that it can effectively integrate with the growth of a human’s critical thinking, then we have to look at it as a genuine tool of improvement.
In the end, I think the key to AI and critical thinking is all in the process. If the AI offers counterpoints and pushes the learner to explain their reasoning, then it is effectively building critical thinking skills. It is the scary thought that AI will replace the reflective process and remove all friction for learning. That friction is where the growth happens. Many generative AI platforms now have the option to change the response models. This is the biggest step in AI being able to interact with the scaffolding of critical thinking skills for learners. If it does not give a direct answer and goes through the same thinking process routines that a teacher would apply, does that mean it is effectively building critical thinking?
Purposeful design that forces the AI to make the learner question, reflect, and go through the process of evaluation would be the key necessity for an AI that promotes critical thinking skills. Closed systems might have a chance at this, but with the current development of open-source AI and the way in which many students are using AI as an immediate answer machine, it becomes problematic.