{"resourceId":"arxiv-penn-state-cankaya-genai-critical-thinking-891-college-students-20261028","versions":[{"version":"external-ec59d49726ba1ed639b6ee01033933e8f34be4b2d77549b010495e21279f0ee2","resource":{"id":"arxiv-penn-state-cankaya-genai-critical-thinking-891-college-students-20261028","title":"Preprint: survey of 891 US and Turkish college students finds GenAI experience relates to critical thinking only through dividing labour with the tool and reworking its output","organization":"Pennsylvania State University and Çankaya University (authors)","sector":"Higher education learning and critical thinking with generative AI","geography":"United States and Türkiye","publishedAt":"arXiv preprint 2610.38910, submitted 28 October 2026","publicationDate":"2026-10-28","eventDate":null,"sourceName":"arXiv","sourceLabel":"Academic preprint (cross-sectional survey)","sourceUrl":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.38910","evidenceClass":"academic-research","outcomeClass":"mixed","topics":["knowledge-work"],"finding":"The authors surveyed traditional college students online (917 respondents; 891 analysed: 645 US, 246 Türkiye) using a correlational, cross-sectional design and structural modelling grounded in transactive memory theory. Self-appraised thinking ability and confidence in the human-AI partnership predicted how much practical GenAI experience students built, but neither predicted critical thinking directly. Experience mattered only through two behaviours: dividing and coordinating cognitive labour with the tool, and actively reworking its output rather than accepting it. The structure was largely invariant across countries with two exceptions. The authors acknowledge the design precludes causal inference and that critical thinking enactment was a single dichotomous item.","sledRelevance":"Suggests student-success AI programmes should teach how students engage with AI (verification and reworking), not just provide access.","evidence":"Online convenience survey with structural equation modelling and multigroup comparison.","architectureImplications":"Interpretation: tools and assignments that require students to edit, critique or verify AI output align with the behaviours associated with critical thinking here.","governanceImplications":"Interpretation: AI literacy curricula could emphasise coordination and reworking behaviours.","securityPrivacyImplications":"Not addressed.","caveats":"Preprint, not peer reviewed; preliminary version; self-report; non-US sample requires transferability caution; no learning outcomes.","streamIds":["student-success"],"roles":{"sales":"Sales framing: this preprint shifts the conversation from whether students use AI to how they use it: experience related to critical thinking only through dividing work with the tool and reworking its output. That supports AI literacy and assignment design offers aimed at verification habits. A bounded engagement could design such a module and its evaluation. Do not claim AI use improves critical thinking; this is a preliminary cross-sectional self-report preprint without learning measures.","engineering":"Engineering framing: there is no system to integrate, but the finding informs tool configuration and assignment workflows that require students to critique, edit or verify AI output before submission. Check whether course AI tools can log revisions or prompt students to annotate changes. Proof of value should test whether such prompts increase observable reworking behaviour in a pilot, using instruments stronger than the single yes/no item the authors relied on.","delivery":"Delivery framing: delivery can embed reworking and verification activities in AI literacy modules and first-year courses. Work includes short activities where students compare, correct and justify changes to AI output, plus a pre/post measure better than a single self-report item. Coordinate with institutional research for ethics approval. Treat the preprint as hypothesis-generating and plan to revisit when the authors publish their validation study and updated results."},"roleDetails":{"sales":{"customerProblem":"Institutions provide AI access without evidence on which student behaviours relate to critical thinking.","stakeholders":["Teaching and learning center","First-year experience directors","Library and information literacy staff","Institutional research"],"discoveryQuestions":["Does your AI literacy content teach verification and reworking?","How do you measure how students use AI?","Which courses could pilot reworking activities?"],"valueHypothesis":"Interpretation: teaching students to divide labour with AI and rework outputs could support critical thinking, pending causal evidence.","potentialEngagement":"Design and evaluation of a reworking-focused AI literacy module in first-year courses.","unsupportedClaims":["Causal effects of GenAI on critical thinking","Learning gains","Generalisation beyond the two convenience samples"]},"engineering":{"fit":"Institutions with course AI tools or LMS workflows that can require annotated revisions.","architectureIntegration":"Assignment workflows capturing AI output, student edits and justifications.","prerequisites":["Ethics approval for evaluation","Validated measurement instrument","Pilot courses"],"constraints":["Preprint and preliminary","Self-report data","US and Turkish samples only"],"security":"Logging student AI interactions requires consent and retention rules.","proofOfValue":["Observed reworking behaviour increases in pilot","Better-than-binary critical thinking measure used","Comparison course included"]},"delivery":{"work":"Add reworking and verification activities to AI literacy modules and evaluate them with a stronger measure.","dependencies":["Faculty partners","Institutional research","Ethics review"],"ownership":"Teaching and learning center with first-year programmes.","skillsAdoption":"Faculty guidance on reworking activities; student practice in critiquing AI output.","governanceCheckpoints":["Ethics approval","Mid-term review of activity uptake","Revisit after authors publish validation"],"acceptanceCriteria":["Proposed: activities embedded in pilot courses","Proposed: pre/post measure collected","Proposed: findings reported to curriculum committee"],"risks":["Over-interpreting correlational data","Activity fatigue","Measurement weakness"]}},"retrievedAt":"2026-10-30T03:20:58Z","enrichedAt":"2026-10-30T03:25:23Z","enrichmentBasis":"retrieved source","accessibilityWorkforceImplications":"Not directly addressed; interpretation: reworking skills may need explicit teaching for students with less AI experience.","procurementImplications":"Not addressed.","operatingModelImplications":"Interpretation: measure how students use AI, not only whether they use it.","peerReview":"preprint","sourceVerification":{"openedUrl":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.38910","referenceExcerpt":"Self-appraised thinking ability and confidence in the partnership shaped how much practical experience a person built up with GenAI, but neither predicted critical thinking directly.","promptVersion":"sled-research-v4.0","model":null,"basis":"agent-reported inspection"}}}]}