Generative Artificial Intelligence and University Students' Critical and Higher-Order Thinking Outcomes: A PRISMA-Based Systematic Review and Thematic Analysis
Authors
-
Yunardi Kristian Zega
Indonesia
Politeknik Negeri Kupang, Kupang
Author
-
Rini Sumanti Sapalakkai
Korea, Republic of
Hoseo University, Asan, Chungcheongnam-do
Author
-
Yuireishang Shithungdang
Korea, Republic of
Hoseo University, Asan, Chungcheongnam-do
Author
-
Luiramsing Zimik
Korea, Republic of
Hoseo University, Asan, Chungcheongnam-do
Author
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.62282/je.v4i1.1-17Keywords:
critical thinking, generative artificial intelligence, higher education, PRISMA, systematic reviewAbstract
The rapid integration of generative artificial intelligence tools such as ChatGPT, Gemini, and Copilot into higher education has raised urgent questions about their effects on students' higher-order cognitive abilities. While these tools promise unprecedented access to information and cognitive support, growing concerns have emerged regarding the potential erosion of critical thinking skills among university students who adopt them uncritically. Despite increasing scholarly attention to artificial intelligence in education, systematic evidence on how generative AI relates to distinct dimensions of higher-order thinking remains limited. This systematic literature review, guided by the PRISMA 2020 reporting guideline, aims to identify, appraise, and synthesize empirical evidence on the relationship between generative AI use and university students' analytical, evaluative, and creative thinking outcomes, using the higher-order cognitive processes of Bloom's Revised Taxonomy as an organizing framework. A comprehensive search across Scopus, Web of Science, ERIC, and Google Scholar yielded 847 initial records, of which 42 empirical studies published between 2020 and 2024 met the inclusion criteria after screening. Thematic synthesis revealed heterogeneous outcomes: analytical thinking outcomes were generally positive under structured prompting conditions, evaluative thinking appeared most vulnerable in the absence of deliberate pedagogical design, and creative thinking outcomes were most frequently reported as positive. Across themes, the quality of pedagogical integration was the condition most frequently associated with favorable outcomes. This review contributes a dimension-level synthesis of generative AI and higher-order thinking, identifies the pedagogical conditions associated with favorable and unfavorable outcomes, and documents the heterogeneity of outcomes across studies, offering an evidence-informed framework for educators, curriculum designers, and policymakers seeking to use generative AI as a cognitive scaffold rather than a cognitive replacement.
References
Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (Eds.). (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives (Complete ed.). Longman.
Baidoo-Anu, D., & Ansah, L. O. (2023). Education in the era of generative artificial intelligence (AI): Understanding the potential benefits of ChatGPT in promoting teaching and learning. Journal of AI, 7(1), 52–62. https://doi.org/10.61969/jai.1337500
Barzilai, S., & Chinn, C. A. (2018). On the goals of epistemic education: Promoting apt epistemic performance. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 27(3), 353–389. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2017.1392968
Battelle for Kids. (2019). Framework for 21st century learning. Partnership for 21st Century Learning. https://www.battelleforkids.org/networks/p21
CASP. (2018). CASP qualitative checklist. Critical Appraisal Skills Programme. https://casp-uk.net/casp-tools-checklists/
Chan, C. K. Y., & Hu, W. (2023). Students' voices on generative AI: Perceptions, benefits, and challenges in higher education. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 20(1), 43. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-023-00411-8
Code, L. (1987). Epistemic responsibility. University Press of New England.
Cotton, D. R. E., Cotton, P. A., & Shipway, J. R. (2024). Chatting and cheating: Ensuring academic integrity in the era of ChatGPT. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 61(2), 228–239. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2023.2190148
Crompton, H., & Burke, D. (2023). Artificial intelligence in higher education: The state of the field. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 20(1), 22. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-023-00392-8
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-2271-7
Facione, P. A. (1990). Critical thinking: A statement of expert consensus for purposes of educational assessment and instruction (The Delphi Report). California Academic Press.
Griffin, P., McGaw, B., & Care, E. (Eds.). (2012). Assessment and teaching of 21st century skills. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2324-5
Hong, Q. N., Pluye, P., Fàbregues, S., Bartlett, G., Boardman, F., Cargo, M., Dagenais, P., Gagnon, M.-P., Griffiths, F., Nicolau, B., O'Cathain, A., Rousseau, M.-C., & Vedel, I. (2018). Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT), version 2018. Canadian Intellectual Property Office. http://mixedmethodsappraisaltoolpublic.pbworks.com/
Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the wild. MIT Press.
Kasneci, E., Seßler, K., Küchemann, S., Bannert, M., Dementieva, D., Fischer, F., Gasser, U., Groh, G., Günnemann, S., Hüllermeier, E., Kruber, S., Kutyniok, G., Michaeli, T., Nerdel, C., Pfeffer, J., Poquet, O., Sailer, M., Schmidt, A., Seidel, T., … Kasneci, G. (2023). ChatGPT for good? On opportunities and challenges of large language models for education. Learning and Individual Differences, 103, 102274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2023.102274
Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., Kirschner, F., & Zambrano, J. (2018). From cognitive load theory to collaborative cognitive load theory. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 13(2), 213–233. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-018-9277-y
Lim, W. M., Gunasekara, A., Pallant, J. L., Pallant, J. I., & Pechenkina, E. (2023). Generative AI and the future of education: Ragnarök or reformation? A paradoxical perspective from management educators. The International Journal of Management Education, 21(2), 100790. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2023.100790
Lo, C. K. (2023). What is the impact of ChatGPT on education? A rapid review of the literature. Education Sciences, 13(4), 410. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13040410
Lumivero. (2023). NVivo 14 [Computer software]. https://lumivero.com/products/nvivo/
McHugh, M. L. (2012). Interrater reliability: The kappa statistic. Biochemia Medica, 22(3), 276–282. https://doi.org/10.11613/BM.2012.031
Mollick, E. R., & Mollick, L. (2023). Using AI to implement effective teaching strategies in classrooms: Five strategies, including prompts. The Wharton School Research Paper. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4391243
Okonkwo, C. W., & Ade, A. (2023). Generative AI and creative writing in higher education: Effects on divergent thinking. Creativity Research Journal, 35(4), 567–582. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2023.2198765
Ouzzani, M., Hammady, H., Fedorowicz, Z., & Elmagarmid, A. (2016). Rayyan, a web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Systematic Reviews, 5(1), 210. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-016-0384-4
Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., Chou, R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J. M., Hróbjartsson, A., Lalu, M. M., Li, T., Loder, E. W., Mayo-Wilson, E., McDonald, S., … Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372, n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71
Salomon, G. (Ed.). (1993). Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations. Cambridge University Press.
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
Thomas, J., & Harden, A. (2008). Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 8(1), 45. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-8-45
Vuorikari, R., Kluzer, S., & Punie, Y. (2022). DigComp 2.2: The Digital Competence Framework for Citizens. Publications Office of the European Union. https://doi.org/10.2760/115376
Wu, T., He, S., Liu, J., Sun, S., Liu, K., Han, Q.-L., & Tang, Y. (2023). A brief overview of ChatGPT: The history, status quo and potential future development. IEEE/CAA Journal of Automatica Sinica, 10(5), 1122–1136. https://doi.org/10.1109/JAS.2023.123618
Zawacki-Richter, O., Marín, V. I., Bond, M., & Gouverneur, F. (2019). Systematic review of research on artificial intelligence applications in higher education, where are the educators? International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 16(1), 39. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-019-0171-0
Zhai, X., Chu, X., Chai, C. S., Jong, M. S. Y., Istenic, A., Spector, M., Liu, J.-B., Yuan, J., & Li, Y. (2021). A review of artificial intelligence (AI) in education from 2010 to 2020. Complexity, 2021, 8812542. https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/8812542
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Yunardi Kristian Zega, Rini Sumanti Sapalakkai, Yuireishang Shithungdang, Luiramsing Zimik (Author)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
License Terms
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0).
Users are free to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, and reuse the published articles for any lawful purpose, provided that appropriate credit is given to the original author(s), the article title, the journal name, and the original publication source.
Authors retain copyright of their articles published in Educatum: Jurnal Dunia Pendidikan.
Any reuse, adaptation, or redistribution of published materials must comply with the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License and applicable copyright regulations.
