From the Student Success edition of October 29, 2026
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
Pennsylvania State University and Çankaya University (authors) · Higher education learning and critical thinking with generative AI · United States and Türkiye
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Original publication
- arXiv preprint 2610.38910, submitted 28 October 2026
- Source retrieved
- 2026-10-30
What happened
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.
Why it matters
Suggests student-success AI programmes should teach how students engage with AI (verification and reworking), not just provide access.
Evidence and measured results
Online convenience survey with structural equation modelling and multigroup comparison.
Limitations and uncertainty
Preprint, not peer reviewed; preliminary version; self-report; non-US sample requires transferability caution; no learning outcomes.
Put this evidence to work
Lighthouse Advisory interpretation, grounded in this source. Enriched 2026-10-30; this does not change the original publication date. Each role follows the same checklist so takeaways compare across sources.
Sales
Role takeaway
- Customer problem
- 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
- Discovery questions
- Does your AI literacy content teach verification and reworking?
- How do you measure how students use AI?
- Which courses could pilot reworking activities?
- Value hypothesis
- Interpretation: teaching students to divide labour with AI and rework outputs could support critical thinking, pending causal evidence.
- Potential engagement
- Design and evaluation of a reworking-focused AI literacy module in first-year courses.
- Unsupported claims
- Causal effects of GenAI on critical thinking
- Learning gains
- Generalisation beyond the two convenience samples
Pre-sales engineering
Role takeaway
- Fit
- Institutions with course AI tools or LMS workflows that can require annotated revisions.
- Architecture and integration
- 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.
- Proof of value
- Observed reworking behaviour increases in pilot
- Better-than-binary critical thinking measure used
- Comparison course included
Delivery
Role takeaway
- 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.
- Skills and adoption
- Faculty guidance on reworking activities; student practice in critiquing AI output.
- Governance checkpoints
- Ethics approval
- Mid-term review of activity uptake
- Revisit after authors publish validation
- Acceptance criteria
- 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
Implementation considerations
Lighthouse Advisory interpretation across the operating dimensions a public-sector buyer must settle before this evidence becomes a design. Each note answers the question under its heading for this specific source.
Architecture and integration
What must connect, and where does the AI sit in the workflow?
Tools and assignments that require students to edit, critique or verify AI output align with the behaviours associated with critical thinking here.
Governance
Who approves, reviews and stays accountable for outcomes?
AI literacy curricula could emphasise coordination and reworking behaviours.
Security and privacy
What data, permissions and controls need testing?
Not addressed.
Accessibility and workforce
Who is affected, and what skills or accommodations follow?
Not directly addressed; interpretation: reworking skills may need explicit teaching for students with less AI experience.
Procurement
What should contracts, pricing and exit terms secure?
Not addressed.
Operating model
Which teams own the service once it runs?
Measure how students use AI, not only whether they use it.
Publication history
- 2026-10-29Student Success · Issue 525 resources
Stable resource ID: arxiv-penn-state-cankaya-genai-critical-thinking-891-college-students-20261028