← Back to all news
arXiv AI By Gabriel R. Lau, Wei Yan Low, Louis Tay, Ysabel Guevarra, Dragan Ga\v{s}evi\'c, Andree Hartanto

Understanding Critical Thinking in Generative Artificial Intelligence Use: Development, Validation, and Correlates of the Critical Thinking in AI Use Scale

Read the original on arXiv AI →

arXiv:2512. 12413v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Generative AI tools are increasingly embedded in everyday work and learning, yet their fluency, opacity, and propensity to hallucinate mean that users must critically evaluate AI outputs rather than accept them at face value.

Machine-generated by The Flow from the publisher's headline and feed description — not written or checked by a human. The full article lives at arXiv AI.

Related stories

arXiv AI
Sep 3

Addressing Trust in AI Systems through Education: A Didactic Perspective

The paper introduces ICE-T, a didactic framework designed to improve trust in AI systems through education. It combines intermodal transfer, computational thinking, and explanatory thinking to address the opacity of machine learning tools. By linking these facets to research on algorithm aversion and AI literacy, the authors argue that trust calibration should be an explicit educational goal.

By Pierre Haritz, Hendrik Krone, Thomas Liebig
More like this →
arXiv AI
Jun 11

IntElicit: Eliciting and Assessing Contextualized Creativity via Dialogue Policy Optimization

arXiv:2606. 12086v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Contextualized assessment offers high ecological validity for evaluating creativity but introduces a critical challenge: observed performance may be confounded with cognitive proficiency (domain knowledge) and agency (willingness to engage).

By Mingjia Li, Jin Wu, Hong Qian, Wenhao Huang, Yiyang Huang, Yiwen Zhang, Chanjin Zheng, Xiangfeng Wang, Aimin Zhou, Jiajun Guo
More like this →
arXiv AI
Sep 17

The Uneven Impact of Generative AI on Student Learning: Examining the Roles of Reliance, Evaluation Literacy, and Course Policy in AI-related Courses

The study investigates how generative AI (GenAI) affects student learning in AI-related courses, using survey data from 118 students across 12 courses. Four distinct user clusters were identified—high-use, light-use, and two moderate-use groups—each showing varying benefits and reliance patterns. The research highlights that early reliance, evaluation literacy, and instructor policies significantly influence perceived academic benefits and negative impacts, underscoring the need for institutional policies to address inequities in AI use.

By Lydia Manikonda, Mei Si, Sirajam Munira, Oshani Seneviratne, Kristin Bennett
More like this →