EXPLORING THE INFLUENCE OF AI-GENERATED CONTENT ON CRITICAL THINKING SKILLS OF UNIVERSITY STUDENTS

Abstract

This study investigates the impact of AI-generated content usage on the critical thinking skills and ethical-reflective academic behavior of university students. With the rapid adoption of generative AI tools such as ChatGPT, Bard, and Claude across academic disciplines, concerns have emerged regarding their influence on students’ cognitive engagement and moral responsibility in educational settings. Employing a cross-sectional survey design, data were collected from a stratified random sample of 400 university students representing diverse fields including Humanities, Social Sciences, STEM, and Business, as well as both undergraduate and graduate levels. Participants’ AI usage patterns were measured alongside validated scales assessing critical thinking competencies and ethical-reflective practices in academic work. Correlational analyses revealed a significant inverse relationship between the frequency of AI-generated content use and students’ critical thinking skills, indicating that excessive reliance on AI tools may undermine students’ ability to engage in analytical reasoning. Additionally, a notable negative association was found between AI use and ethical-reflective behavior, highlighting potential risks to academic integrity and responsible scholarship. Conversely, a positive relationship between critical thinking and ethical use suggests that students who maintain higher cognitive rigor are more likely to employ AI tools responsibly. These findings align with prior research underscoring the need for discipline-specific AI literacy and ethics education to mitigate overdependence on AI outputs and to foster critical and ethical engagement. The study emphasizes the vital role of higher education institutions in developing clear policies and instructional strategies that promote reflective, transparent, and ethical use of AI technologies. This will ensure that AI serves as a supportive aid to intellectual growth rather than a substitute for critical and ethical academic practices.