Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 9, No. 5, 2046-2063 2025 Publisher: Learning Gate DOI: 10.55214/25768484.v9i5.7377 © 2025 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate © 2025 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate History: Received: 5 March 2025; Revised: 2 May 2025; Accepted: 6 May 2025; Published: 20 May 2025 * Correspondence: nirumala.rothinam@qiu.edu.my Systematic literature review on critical thinking in higher education Nirumala Rothinam1*, Rama Vengrasalam2, Sivabala Naidu3, Suppiah Nachiappan4, Samikannu Jabamoney5 1,2,3,4,5Quest Interntional University, Perak, Malaysia; nirumala.rothinam@qiu.edu.my (N.R.). Abstract: The purpose of this paper is to conduct a comprehensive systematic literature review (SLR) on the development, assessment, and influencing factors of critical thinking in higher education. As critical thinking is widely recognized as a core competency for academic and professional success, this review aims to synthesize empirical evidence on how it is fostered across various disciplines and learning environments. The study investigates effective pedagogical strategies, assessment techniques, and the integration of digital tools, including artificial intelligence, in promoting critical thinking. Additionally, it explores how institutional policies, cultural contexts, and disciplinary differences shape students’ critical thinking dispositions and learning outcomes. Using PRISMA guidelines, 50 empirical studies from 2016 to 2025 were selected across multiple databases. The review analyzed both qualitative and quantitative research on critical thinking development, assessment techniques, AI integration, pedagogical methods, and socio-cultural influences. Findings indicate that active learning, interdisciplinary instruction, and AI-enhanced tools support critical thinking development. However, over-reliance on standardized assessments and AI-generated content can hinder deep engagement. Disciplinary and cultural factors also shape critical thinking skills. Most studies used cross-sectional designs and focused on specific disciplines or regions, limiting generalizability. Future research should explore longitudinal impacts and cross-cultural comparisons. Universities should adopt blended assessment methods, invest in AI literacy, and revise curricula to foster critical thinking through interdisciplinary and student-centered learning environments. Keywords: Active learning, AI in education, Assessment, Pedagogy, Critical thinking, Higher Education, Student engagement. 1. Introduction Critical thinking is a fundamental skill in higher education, fostering students' abilities to analyse, evaluate, and synthesize information for informed decision-making. As educational paradigms evolve, there has been increasing emphasis on assessing and enhancing critical thinking skills across various disciplines [1, 2]. Research indicates that integrating critical thinking into curricula not only enhances student engagement but also equips learners with essential skills for navigating complex real-world problems [3]. This study conducts a Systematic Literature Review (SLR) to explore existing research on critical thinking in higher education, focusing on methodologies, assessment techniques, influencing factors, and implications for educational policy and practice. Specifically, this review examines how diverse pedagogical approaches, such as inquiry-based learning and collaborative projects, enhance critical thinking outcomes [4]. It also explores assessment techniques, including formative assessments and rubrics, as effective measures of students' cognitive skills [5]. Furthermore, this study investigates institutional and cultural factors influencing the development of critical thinking, recognizing that policies and practices established at the organizational level play a crucial role in fostering an environment conducive to critical engagement [6]. Ultimately, this review highlights prevailing trends 2047 Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 9, No. 5: 2046-2063, 2025 DOI: 10.55214/25768484.v9i5.7377 © 2025 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate in the assessment and teaching of critical thinking and offers insights into developing effective educational policies that promote these essential skills. 2. Background / Literature Review The literature on critical thinking in higher education spans multiple domains, including psychology, education, technology, and social sciences. Researchers have explored various aspects of critical thinking, focusing on assessment methods, pedagogical interventions, and the role of technology in cognitive development [7]. One major area of study involves the assessment of critical thinking skills using standardized tests such as the California Critical Thinking Skills Test (CCTST) and the Watson- Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal [8]. These tools help measure students' abilities to analyze, evaluate, and reason logically. However, scholars argue that standardized tests may not fully capture the complexity of critical thinking in diverse learning environments, particularly in contexts that require creative problem-solving and interdisciplinary thinking [9]. Another significant focus is the impact of digital learning technologies and AI-driven tools on students' critical thinking abilities. Studies have investigated how platforms such as ChatGPT and AI- based learning systems can enhance students' analytical reasoning by providing instant feedback, exposure to multiple perspectives, and interactive learning experiences [10]. While AI has shown potential in supporting cognitive development, concerns about over-reliance on AI-generated content and the accuracy of AI feedback remain key challenges in its adoption for educational purposes [11]. Educational interventions, such as case studies, active learning, debate-based learning, and precision teaching, have also been examined for their effectiveness in fostering critical analysis and problem- solving skills [12]. Case-based learning encourages students to apply theoretical knowledge to real- world situations, while debate-based learning enhances argumentation skills and cognitive flexibility [13]. Precision teaching methods, which focus on data-driven instructional techniques, have been shown to improve students' critical thinking fluency over time [5]. Additionally, cultural, and demographic factors play a role in shaping students' critical thinking dispositions. Studies have explored how gender, educational background, parental education, and academic discipline influence students’ engagement with critical thinking tasks [14]. For instance, some research indicates that students in social sciences tend to demonstrate stronger critical thinking dispositions compared to those in STEM fields, where problem-solving approaches may prioritize structured methodologies over open-ended inquiry [15]. Several systematic reviews and meta-analyses suggest that constructivist learning theories, active engagement, and technology-enhanced learning environments significantly contribute to the development of higher-order thinking skills [16, 17]. However, challenges such as assessment bias, reliance on rote learning, and issues related to AI dependency remain. Addressing these challenges requires a multi-faceted approach that integrates innovative teaching strategies, blended assessment methods, and responsible AI integration in higher education [6]. 3. Methodology Critical thinking is widely recognized as a crucial competency for higher education students, yet there remains a lack of clarity regarding the most effective strategies for its assessment, development, and enhancement across diverse academic contexts. This systematic literature review (SLR) aims to synthesize existing research to address this gap and provide insights into best practices for fostering critical thinking in higher education.As this review does not involve human or animal subjects, research protocol registration was not required before undertaking the study. The systematic review and meta- analysis were conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines to ensure methodological rigor and transparency.The purpose of this SLR is to explore, assess, and summarize the determinants influencing critical thinking in higher education. Specifically, this review seeks to address the following research question: 2048 Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 9, No. 5: 2046-2063, 2025 DOI: 10.55214/25768484.v9i5.7377 © 2025 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate • How is critical thinking assessed, developed, and influenced in higher education contexts? To answer this question, the review focuses on the following key areas: Contextual factors play a significant role in shaping critical thinking development in higher education. Institutional policies that prioritize active learning, interdisciplinary collaboration, and student-centred pedagogies contribute to fostering critical thinking skills [18]. Teaching methodologies, including problem-based learning, debate formats, and inquiry-driven instruction, further influence how students engage in analytical reasoning [19]. Additionally, digital learning tools such as AI-based tutors, online discussion forums, and gamification strategies have been shown to support critical thinking development by providing interactive and adaptive learning experiences [20]. Faculty engagement is also critical, as instructors who integrate reflective questioning, real-world case studies, and metacognitive strategies can significantly enhance students' critical thinking abilities [2]. The assessment of critical thinking in higher education relies on a variety of standardized and alternative frameworks. Traditional cognitive assessments such as the California Critical Thinking Skills Test (CCTST) and Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal (WGCTA) are widely used to measure students' analytical, evaluative, and inferential reasoning abilities [1]. However, alternative assessment methods, including discourse analysis of student interactions, reflective writing assignments, and project-based evaluations, provide deeper insights into students’ ability to apply critical thinking in real-world scenarios. The effectiveness of these assessment techniques varies across disciplines, highlighting the need for contextually relevant evaluation strategies [6]. Cognitive, emotional, and social influences significantly impact students' critical thinking dispositions. Self-efficacy, or students' belief in their ability to engage in analytical reasoning, plays a key role in their willingness to question assumptions and explore multiple perspectives [21]. Motivation, both intrinsic and extrinsic, also affects students’ engagement in critical thinking tasks [22]. Collaboration with peers fosters dialogue and exposure to diverse viewpoints, which enhances reasoning skills. Furthermore, cultural perspectives shape how students approach problem-solving and argumentation, indicating that critical thinking development must be adapted to diverse educational and social contexts [23]. To improve critical thinking outcomes in higher education, evidence-based recommendations must be provided for educational policymakers, instructors, and curriculum developers. Institutions should incorporate critical thinking instruction into curricula through explicit skill-building exercises and interdisciplinary coursework [3]. Faculty development programs should train educators in strategies that promote analytical reasoning and reflective learning. Assessment practices should balance traditional testing with performance-based evaluations that measure real-world application of critical thinking. Additionally, universities should invest in technological innovations and collaborative learning environments to support students' cognitive development. These recommendations aim to create a comprehensive framework for fostering critical thinking skills in higher education [17]. 3.1. Data Collection and Analysis Procedure The selection criteria for this systematic literature review (SLR) involved identifying relevant studies from multiple academic databases, including ERIC, PsycINFO, JSTOR, SpringerLink, Taylor & Francis Online, Wiley Online Library, and Google Scholar. Articles were selected based on their alignment with the research focus on critical thinking in higher education. The inclusion criteria emphasized peer-reviewed journal articles, empirical studies, and conference proceedings published between 2016 and 2025, ensuring up-to-date insights. The inclusion of Ahern, et al. [24] in the review, despite the 2016–2025 scope, is justified because it provides a foundational Critical Thinking Model that remains relevant in higher education research. The study highlights disciplinary differences in CT instruction, particularly between engineering and humanities, an issue still debated in recent literature. If later studies build upon, reference, or fail to address this gap adequately, its inclusion ensures a comprehensive theoretical foundation. Additionally, its findings may have influenced educational policies and assessment frameworks, making it a key reference for understanding the evolution of 2049 Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 9, No. 5: 2046-2063, 2025 DOI: 10.55214/25768484.v9i5.7377 © 2025 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate critical thinking pedagogy. Exclusion criteria eliminated book chapters, editorials, non-English articles, SLRs, and studies with vague methodologies. 3.2. Databases and Their Relevance Figure 1 visually represents the distribution of selected studies across various academic databases, highlighting the primary sources used for this Systematic Literature Review (SLR). A significant portion of the literature was retrieved from ERIC, PsycINFO, and JSTOR, reflecting their strong relevance in educational and psychological research. SpringerLink, Taylor & Francis Online, and Wiley Online Library also contributed extensively, emphasizing their role in providing peer-reviewed articles on teaching methodologies, cognitive development, and learning sciences. Additionally, Google Scholar played a crucial role in broadening the search scope by indexing a wide range of scholarly books, articles, and reports across multiple disciplines. The distribution depicted in the graph underscores the multidisciplinary approach taken in this review, ensuring a comprehensive and diverse analysis of critical thinking in higher education. Figure 1. Distribution of studies according to the year. The distribution of research design types across the 50 studies as shown in Figure 2 reveals a strong preference for quantitative research, which appears most frequently, followed by experimental, mixed-methods, and qualitative approaches. Quantitative studies dominate, suggesting a heavy reliance on statistical data and structured methodologies to assess critical thinking in education. Experimental and quasi-experimental designs are also widely used, reflecting efforts to measure interventions' effects on critical thinking skills. Mixed-methods research, which integrates both qualitative and quantitative approaches, shows a balanced attempt to capture both measurable outcomes and deeper insights into learning processes. Meanwhile, qualitative studies, though fewer in number, emphasize in-depth analysis through interviews, thematic analysis, and ethnographic techniques. This distribution suggests that while objective, data-driven approaches are prevalent, there is a growing recognition of the need for more holistic, context-rich explorations of critical thinking development. 2050 Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 9, No. 5: 2046-2063, 2025 DOI: 10.55214/25768484.v9i5.7377 © 2025 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate Figure 2. Distribution of research design types across the studies. 3.3. Risk of Bias Assessment Each study included in the review was evaluated for potential bias using the Cochrane risk of bias tool, which considers factors such as selection bias, performance bias, detection bias, attrition bias, and reporting bias [25]. The assessment was conducted independently by five researchers, and their findings were consolidated into a detailed summary table. Given that this review does not focus on medical or strictly scientific research, the risk of bias assessment primarily emphasized the instruments used and the sample size of each study. 3.4. Certainty Assessment The GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations) approach was employed to systematically evaluate the quality of evidence for each reported outcome. This method provided a structured framework for assessing the reliability of findings based on the comparison criteria [26]. A summary of the methodologies and keywords used in the reviewed articles is provided in the accompanying table. 3.5. Ethics Statement As the review is based solely on previously published data, ethical approval was not required for this analysis. 4 Results 4.1. Study Selection The review gave a total of 350 articles in the initial search which was done systematically. For the final screening, out of the 250 articles which were assessed based on the titles and abstracts, 50 articles as displayed in Table 1 were considered for the systematic review. The following is a flowchart of the selection process that has been described above: 2051 Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 9, No. 5: 2046-2063, 2025 DOI: 10.55214/25768484.v9i5.7377 © 2025 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate Figure 3. PRISMA Flow Diagram of Study Selection. 2052 Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 9, No. 5: 2046-2063, 2025 DOI: 10.55214/25768484.v9i5.7377 © 2025 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate Table 1. Distribution of articles reviewed. 1. Ahern, et al. [24] Qualitative study, Semi-structured interviews & Documentary analysis Semi-structured Interviews (13 academics), Documentary analysis (curricula & student work), Critical Thinking Model 13 academics across disciplines, Module descriptors & student work, Purposive sampling University College Dublin, Ireland Engineering disciplines lack clear CT definitions. Humanities offer more explicit CT instruction. CT model developed. 2. Almulla [27]. Quantitative Survey on motivation, cooperativity, peer engagement, smart classroom environment 297 students King Faisal University, Saudi Arabia Critical thinking and creativity positively influenced academic performance 3. Aston [28]. Qualitative Student interviews, self- assessment reflections, Active learning workshops 23 postgraduate students University of Sheffield, UK Workshops increased CT awareness and bias recognition 4. Azkarate-Iturbe, et al. [29] Quantitative National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE), Cooperative Mindset Scale (CMS), Critical Thinking Disposition Scale (CTDS) 1580 undergraduates Spain Identified high, moderate, and low engagement groups; social sciences students more engaged 5. Calma and Davies [30]. Quantitative study, Systematic Essay Evaluation Corpus of 152 graduate essays, Critical Thinking Operationalisation Framework (CTOF), Paragraph Analysis (3,279 coded paragraphs) 152 masterlevel business student essays, Systematic corpus analysis Australia (Research- intensive business school) Essays scored high in structuring & reasoning but lacked inferential evaluation. Suggests better CT assessment rubrics. 6. Cao, et al. [31] Quantitative 15-item self-designed questionnaire 476 university students 67 universities, China High awareness of ChatGPT, concerns about academic integrity 7. Chen and Chang [32] Quasi-experimental Creative Problem-Solving Questionnaire (CPSQ), Pre-test & post-test assessments 69 postgraduate students Private university, Thailand Project-based learning improved problem-solving and critical thinking 8. Darwin, et al. [33] Qualitative case study, Thematic analysis Semi-structured interviews (7 EFL students), AI tools exploration 7 master's students, Two Indonesian universities, Purposive sampling Indonesia (Two universities) Students see AI as helpful in research but worry about over- reliance, bias, and loss of independent thinking. 9. De la Puente, et al. [34]. Quantitative Pre-test and post-test assessments, ChatGPT-based debate sessions 95 undergraduate students Universidad del Norte, Colombia ChatGPT improved argumentation and critical thinking more than traditional debates 10. Dissen [35]. Quantitative California Critical Thinking Skills Test (CCTST), California Critical Thinking Disposition Inventory (CCTDI) 140 senior-level undergraduate students Stockton University, USA Lower critical thinking skills compared to national population, weakest numeracy skills, GPA weakly correlated 11. Essien, et al. [36]. Mixed Pre-test & post-test CT 107 postgraduate UK business AI improved basic CT but had 2053 Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 9, No. 5: 2046-2063, 2025 DOI: 10.55214/25768484.v9i5.7377 © 2025 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate assessments, AI Use Survey, Thematic Analysis students schools limited impact on higher-order thinking 12. Parra, et al. [37]. Qualitative Systematic review of teacher education & critical thinking Not specified Latin America CT development in teacher training is inconsistent 13. Gadot and Tsybulsky [38]. Mixed Digital curation log analysis, Reflective reports, Semi- structured interviews 107 participants Israel Developed a taxonomy of digital curation fostering critical thinking 14. Gandimathi and Zarei [39]. Qualitative Semi-structured interviews, Open-ended questionnaire, Essay writing task 30 postgraduate ESL students UNITAR International University, Malaysia CT improved language proficiency 15. D’Northwood and Rattray [40]. Qualitative study, Thematic analysis Semi-structured Interviews (21 business school academics) 21 Business school academics, Purposeful sampling Russell Group University, UK Academics conceptualize CT through argumentation, dispositions, and originality. Originality is debated as part of CT. 16. Haghparast, et al. [41]. Quantitative Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal-UK (WGCTA-UK), Information Seeking Process (ISP) model- based survey 45 postgraduate students University of Malaya, Malaysia 71% scored below average in critical thinking, strongest in assumption recognition, weakest in inference 17. Han, et al. [42] Quantitative Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) Survey, Learner Engagement Scale, Chinese Critical Thinking Scale 1026 Chinese college EFL students Multiple universities, China Positive correlations between technology acceptance, engagement, and critical thinking 18. Lijie, et al. [43] Quantitative Social Media Usage Questionnaire, Learning to Learn Competence Scale, Critical Thinking Scale 301 university students University of the Basque Country, Spain Evaluating information sources on social media correlated with critical thinking 19. Lijie, et al. [43] Quantitative AI Literacy Scale (AIL), Technology Acceptance Model (TAM), Motivation Scale (MO), Critical Thinking Disposition (CTD) Scale 483 university students Multiple universities, Malaysia AI literacy significantly influenced critical thinking disposition 20. Hounsell [44]. Conceptual Systematic review of feedback models Not empirical International (UK, US, Australia, Europe) Effective feedback must align with CT & professional application 21. Jabali, et al. [45]. Mixed Survey with 173 faculty members, In-depth interviews with 7 academic staff 173 faculty + 7 staff Palestinian universities Grades hinder critical thinking, faculty cite lack of resources as barrier 22. Kabwete, et al. [46]. Mixed-methods study, Constructivist Questionnaire (N=108), Semi- structured interviews (N=22), 130 mature female students, Four Rwanda (Four universities) Higher education helped women improve problem-solving, social 2054 Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 9, No. 5: 2046-2063, 2025 DOI: 10.55214/25768484.v9i5.7377 © 2025 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate approach Thematic analysis Rwandan universities, Purposive sampling mobility, and confidence but posed financial and linguistic challenges. 23. Landa-Blanco and Cortés- Ramos [47]. Quantitative Attitudes Towards Research Scale, Epistemic Orientation Short Scale, Critical Thinking Disposition Scale 137 psychology students Universidad Nacional Autónoma de Honduras Students with high critical thinking had better academic grades 24. Lee, et al. [48] Qualitative case study, Inductive thematic analysis Semi-structured interviews (12 students), Conceptual model development 12 undergraduates, National University of Singapore, Purposive sampling Singapore (NUS) Students develop CT through exposure, frameworks, practice, and interdisciplinary learning. 25. Li [49] Mixed-methods study, Survey, Interviews, Observations Survey (182 teachers), Focus Groups (12 teachers), Classroom Observations (3 teachers) 182 EFL Teachers (China), Convenience snowball sampling China (Secondary Schools, Beijing) Teachers conceptualize CT as analysis, inference, and evaluation. Classroom strategies promote CT but time constraints and exam focus hinder integration. 26. Antrobus and West [50]. Qualitative study, Document analysis & Auto-ethnography Document Analysis (PME course materials, blog posts, MoD policies), Auto- ethnographic reflections PME Course materials, MoD policies, Military discussion forums, Auto-ethnography from two veteran scholars UK Military Education (JSCSC, Shrivenham) PME emphasizes structured reasoning over a critical spirit. Hierarchy limits open critical discussions. Officers struggle to challenge authority. 27. Mahdi, et al. [51]. Mixed Pre-test & post-test on CT skills, Questionnaire, Semi- structured interviews 40 students Applied Science University, Bahrain Case-based learning improved CT, group work was most effective 28. Sheybani and Miri [52]. Quantitative study, Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) Professional Identity Questionnaire [53] Critical Thinking Scale [54] 259 EFL Teachers (Iran), Convenience sampling Iran (Language Institutes) Professional Identity positively correlates with CT (r=0.64, p<0.01). CT significantly predicts didactical & pedagogical fields. 29. [55]. Quantitative Research Self-Efficacy Scale, Attitudes Toward Computers Scale, Critical Thinking Disposition Scale 197 postgraduate students Eight universities, Turkey CT significantly predicted research self-efficacy 30. Orhan and Van Le [56]. Quantitative Sosu Critical Thinking Dispositions Scale (CTDS), Multi-group Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) 925 university students (480 Turkish, 445 Vietnamese) Türkiye, Vietnam No significant difference in critical thinking between groups, parental education influenced Turkish students more 31. O'Riordan, et al. [57]. Mixed Pedagogical Content Analysis, Linguistic Analysis, Interaction Metrics 41,500 MOOC learners (sample: 1,500 comments) FutureLearn platform MOOCs with structured discussions fostered better critical thinking 2055 Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 9, No. 5: 2046-2063, 2025 DOI: 10.55214/25768484.v9i5.7377 © 2025 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate 32. Osborne, et al. [58]. Mixed Survey & Thematic Analysis of Asynchronous Online Discussions (AOD) 34 postgraduate nursing students Multi-campus university, Australia AOD fostered engagement but assessment concerns affected discussions 33. Virtič [59]. Quasi-experimental Pre-test & post-test on research skills 31 students (14 undergraduates, 17 postgraduates) University of Lille, France Scientific literacy improved across all levels 34. Pu and Evans [60]. Qualitative Ethnographic Interviews, Positioning Theory Analysis 29 postgraduate students Universities in China and the UK Students' CT influenced by their self-positioning in academia 35. Ronderos, et al. [61]. Comparative cross- national study, Mixed-method Curriculum Analysis (384 documents), Interviews (9 teacher educators) 9 Teacher educators (4 Colombia, 5 Switzerland), Purposeful sampling Colombia & Switzerland Critical Thinking is integrated differently across national curricula. Colombia emphasizes CT at all levels, Switzerland mainly at course level. Argumentation is the most emphasized CT facet. 36. Rossi, et al. [62]. Mixed Pre-course, mid-course, post- course questionnaires, Multiple- choice & open-ended questions 83 students Federal University of Paraná, Brazil Active learning methods improved critical thinking and motivation 37. Shamida, et al. [63]. Quantitative Questionnaire on perceived performance, Reading test (MUET-based) 50 postgraduate students Private university, Malaysia Students overestimated their critical reading skills 38. Sheikhbardsiri, et al. [64]. Quantitative Emotional Intelligence & Learning Strategies Questionnaires 183 postgraduate students Kerman University of Medical Sciences, Iran Self-management linked to CT & learning strategies 39. Smith and Drybrough [65]. Case study, Qualitative (Positioning Theory) CT Retreat, Group Interviews (14 students), Reflexive Thematic Analysis 128 Chinese international master students, 14 in-depth interviewees, Voluntary participation UK (School of Education, Scotland) Students initially misunderstood CT, later repositioned as researchers/practitioners. Calls for earlier CT training. 40. Tan, et al. [66]. Experimental Fallacy Identification Assessments, Problem-based Training 57 university students University in the UK Precision teaching improved CT in online learning 41. Tang [67]. Quasi-experimental Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Assessment (WGCTA) 318 university students Peking University, Tsinghua University, Renmin University, China Smart learning technologies improved critical thinking significantly 42. Teo, et al. [68]. Quasi-experimental study, Mixed- methods Visual-Based Mapping Tool, Surveys, In-class assessments, Semi-structured interviews 104 final-year undergraduates, NTU Singapore, Convenience Singapore (NTU) Visual-based mapping enhances problem-solving, self- regulation, and evaluative 2056 Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 9, No. 5: 2046-2063, 2025 DOI: 10.55214/25768484.v9i5.7377 © 2025 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate sampling reasoning. 43. Terblanche and De Clercq [69]. Qualitative Literature review, Interactive Qualitative Analysis (IQA), Focus groups Accounting students University of South Africa Developed a critical thinking competency framework for accounting students 44. Turner and Tyler [70]. Qualitative study, Phenomenography TDC Critical Thinking Framework, Phenomenographic analysis of 101 student assignments 101 first-year accounting students, Australian university, Volunteer participation Australia (Accounting program) Accounting students struggle with CT but improve through structured interventions, questioning, and deep engagement. 45. Veliz and Veliz-Campos [71]. Qualitative Semi-structured interviews, Thematic Analysis 10 participants (5 postgrads, 5 educators) Three Chilean universities CT underemphasized in teacher education, mismatch in expectations 46. Wali and Popal [72]. Quantitative Survey on technology use in classrooms 30 postgraduate students University Teknologi Mara, Malaysia Technology enhanced engagement but reduced face- to-face interaction 47. Weng, et al. [73]. Experimental Deep Learning Process & Ability Questionnaires, Performance Evaluation 105 postgraduate students Wuhan University of Science and Technology, China Design-based learning improved deep learning and critical thinking 48. Yang and Mohd [74]. Quantitative study, Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) Community of Inquiry (CoI) Survey (39 items), Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ), Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) 542 EFL university students, 13 universities in Gansu, Probability sampling Gansu, China (EFL University Programs) CT mediates between Social Presence (SP), Teaching Presence (TP), and Cognitive Presence (CP) in blended learning. 49. Yin, et al. [75]. Quasi-experimental study, Pre-post-test design Technology-Enhanced Social Learning (TSL), California Critical Thinking Disposition Inventory (CCTDI), IELTS Argumentative Writing Test 60 first-year English major students, Two natural groups (TSL vs Traditional Writing) Hebei, China (Public University) TSL group showed greater improvement in CT dispositions & argumentative writing. Strongest gains in open- mindedness & systematicity. 50. Zhao, et al. [76]. Quantitative Digital Learning Power Assessment Questionnaire, Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) 2041 university students Provincial key university, China Urban students performed better, sophomore/junior years critical for digital learning power 2057 Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 9, No. 5: 2046-2063, 2025 DOI: 10.55214/25768484.v9i5.7377 © 2025 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate 4.2. Assessment of Critical Thinking Assessing critical thinking in higher education often relies on standardized tools such as the California Critical Thinking Skills Test (CCTST), the Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal (WGCTA), and the Critical Thinking Disposition Scales [1, 77]. These assessments offer a structured framework for evaluating students' analytical and reasoning abilities and are widely acknowledged in educational research. In addition to these quantitative measures, qualitative studies have employed content analysis and thematic evaluations to explore students' argumentation and cognitive processes, providing deeper insights into how critical thinking develops in different learning environments [78, 79]. Recent research highlights the significance of qualitative methods, such as reflexive thematic analysis (RTA), in capturing students' experiences and conceptualizations of critical thinking. Studies focusing on Chinese international master’s students at UK universities have found that initial misunderstandings of critical thinking often lead to self-positioning as passive learners. However, structured interventions, such as critical thinking retreats, have been instrumental in helping students transition from passive learning to independent research-oriented identities (2024). These findings underscore the need for direct and early instruction in critical thinking, particularly for international students adapting to different academic expectations. The growing use of AI-based evaluations in assessing critical thinking presents both opportunities and challenges. While AI tools can analyze large datasets and offer real-time feedback, concerns about bias and reliability remain prevalent. Recent studies have raised questions about whether these systems can accurately capture the nuances of human reasoning or if they inadvertently reinforce existing biases [80, 81]. Addressing these concerns is crucial to ensuring that AI-driven assessments complement, rather than compromise, the integrity of critical thinking evaluation in education. 4.3. Pedagogical Approaches to Enhancing Critical Thinking To foster critical thinking among students, educators have implemented a variety of pedagogical approaches. Research indicates that group case-based learning leads to greater improvements in critical thinking than individual case studies, as it encourages collaboration and diverse perspectives [82, 83]. Similarly, active learning methodologies, including problem-based learning (PBL), debate-based learning, and peer discussions, have been shown to enhance students' reasoning abilities by promoting analytical engagement and deeper cognitive processing [84, 85]. A qualitative study focusing on positioning theory and critical thinking interventions among international students further illustrates how structured pedagogical strategies influence cognitive development. Findings suggest that students initially struggle with conceptualizing critical thinking, often equating it with criticism rather than evaluative judgment. However, by integrating structured discussions and critical reading/writing sessions, students gradually reposition themselves as independent thinkers (2024). Moreover, peer discussions, while initially challenging, were ultimately recognized as valuable for developing critical perspectives and fostering engagement in academic discourse. Alongside these instructional strategies, the integration of digital curation and AI tools has further contributed to the development of students' argumentation skills. AI-assisted learning platforms, for instance, provide instant feedback, exposure to multiple viewpoints, and interactive learning experiences, reinforcing the benefits of active learning. However, while technology can be a powerful tool for fostering critical thinking, its misuse may undermine students' ability to think independently. Growing concerns about over-reliance on AI-generated content highlight the potential risks of excessive dependence on automated tools, which could discourage deeper cognitive engagement. Recent studies underscore the importance of balancing AI-enhanced learning with traditional cognitive approaches to ensure that technology serves as a supplement rather than a substitute for critical thinking [86, 87]. 2058 Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 9, No. 5: 2046-2063, 2025 DOI: 10.55214/25768484.v9i5.7377 © 2025 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate 4.4. Influencing Factors Beyond instructional methods and technology, various contextual factors also shape the development of critical thinking skills in educational settings. While demographic aspects such as gender have not shown a significant impact, parental education has been found to influence critical thinking in specific cultural contexts, as students from households with higher educational attainment often receive more exposure to analytical discussions and problem-solving activities at an early stage [88, 89]. This suggests that socio-cultural background plays a role in shaping students' intellectual engagement and cognitive flexibility. Additionally, disciplinary background contributes to differences in critical thinking development. Research indicates that students in social sciences tend to exhibit stronger critical thinking dispositions compared to those in STEM fields [90, 91]. This difference may stem from the nature of academic training, where social sciences emphasize debate, argumentation, and multiple perspectives, whereas STEM disciplines often prioritize structured problem-solving and formulaic reasoning. However, some studies argue that incorporating interdisciplinary approaches can help bridge this gap, ensuring that students across all fields develop well-rounded critical thinking skills. Moreover, technology acceptance plays a crucial role in fostering critical thinking abilities. Research suggests that students with higher AI literacy and engagement with smart learning tools tend to demonstrate enhanced critical thinking abilities, as digital platforms provide opportunities for deeper exploration, access to diverse viewpoints, and instant feedback mechanisms [92]. However, the effectiveness of these tools depends on how they are integrated into the learning process. If students passively consume AI-generated content without questioning or analysing it, their critical thinking skills may stagnate rather than develop. Therefore, active engagement with technology, rather than passive reliance, is key to ensuring that digital tools serve as an enhancement rather than a replacement for analytical reasoning. Taken together, these factors illustrate that critical thinking development is not solely dependent on pedagogy or technology but is also influenced by broader social, disciplinary, and technological contexts. Addressing these variables through targeted educational strategies, interdisciplinary collaboration, and responsible technology integration can help cultivate a learning environment that fosters independent, reflective, and analytical thinkers. 5. Conclusion This Systematic Literature Review (SLR) provides valuable insights into how critical thinking is assessed, developed, and influenced in higher education. The findings highlight that a combination of active learning strategies, digital tools, and AI-based learning environments can significantly enhance students' higher-order thinking skills. These approaches encourage analytical reasoning, problem- solving, and the ability to evaluate diverse perspectives. However, despite these benefits, several challenges remain, including concerns about assessment reliability, dependence on AI, and institutional constraints. Addressing these issues is essential to ensure that critical thinking education is effectively implemented and sustained. Despite progress in fostering critical thinking, several challenges persist. One significant issue is the limitations of assessment methods; an overreliance on standardized tests may not fully capture the cognitive abilities of students [93, 94]. Institutional barriers also play a crucial role, as large class sizes, inadequate faculty training, and an assessment-driven approach to learning can hinder the promotion of critical thinking [95, 96]. Moreover, ethical and policy concerns surrounding the use of AI tools in education raise important questions about academic integrity and the potential biases inherent in AI-generated content [97]. Addressing these challenges is vital for fostering a robust environment conducive to critical thinking development. To enhance critical thinking development, institutions should integrate active learning approaches such as case studies, debates, and problem-based learning into curricula. These methods foster student engagement and encourage deeper analytical reasoning. A blended assessment approach should be adopted, combining standardized tests with qualitative evaluations to provide a more comprehensive and accurate measurement of students’ critical thinking abilities. Universities must also focus on 2059 Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 9, No. 5: 2046-2063, 2025 DOI: 10.55214/25768484.v9i5.7377 © 2025 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate enhancing AI literacy by training students to critically evaluate AI-generated content, ensuring they can differentiate between reliable and biased information. Educational policies should be revised to shift away from rote memorization and toward strategies that actively promote critical thinking across disciplines. Finally, further research should explore the long-term impact of AI and digital tools on students' cognitive development, providing valuable insights into refining and improving educational strategies. By implementing these recommendations, higher education institutions can create an environment that fosters critical thinking, encourages intellectual curiosity, and prepares students for complex problem-solving in the real world. Funding: The study is funded by Quest International University. Transparency: The authors confirm that the manuscript is an honest, accurate, and transparent account of the study; that no vital features of the study have been omitted; and that any discrepancies from the study as planned have been explained. This study followed all ethical practices during writing. Copyright: © 2025 by the authors. This open-access article is distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). References [1] P. A. Facione, The California critical thinking skills test and the development of critical thinking skills. Millbrae, CA: Insight Assessment, 1990. [2] R. H. Ennis, "Critical thinking across the curriculum: A vision," Topoi, vol. 37, pp. 165-184, 2018. https://doi.org/10.xxxx/inquiry.v32i1.12345 [3] D. F. Halpern, Thought and knowledge: An introduction to critical thinking. New York: Psychology Press, 2013. [4] C. B. Hodges, D. W. S. Tai, and C. D. Parker, "Technology-enhanced learning environments and critical thinking," Journal of Educational Technology & Society, vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 48-59, 2020. [5] P. C. Abrami, R. M. Bernard, E. Borokhovski, D. I. Waddington, C. A. Wade, and T. Persson, "Strategies for teaching students to think critically: A meta-analysis," Review of Educational Research, vol. 85, no. 2, pp. 275-314, 2015. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654314551063 [6] R. Paul and L. Elder, Critical thinking: Tools for taking charge of your professional and personal life, 2nd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson, 2014. [7] C. P. Dwyer, M. J. Hogan, and I. Stewart, "An integrated critical thinking framework for the 21st century," Thinking skills and Creativity, vol. 12, pp. 43-52, 2014. [8] H. A. Butler, "Halpern critical thinking assessment predicts real‐world outcomes of critical thinking," Applied Cognitive Psychology, vol. 26, no. 5, pp. 721-729, 2012. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1814 [9] K. Y. Ku and I. T. Ho, "Metacognitive strategies that enhance critical thinking," Metacognition and Learning, vol. 5, pp. 251-267, 2010. [10] R. Luckin, W. Holmes, M. Griffiths, and L. B. Forcier, Artificial intelligence and education: Opportunities and challenges. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/7c5dc03e-en, 2022. [11] W. Holmes, Artificial intelligence in education: Promises and implications for teaching and learning. MA, USA: Center for Curriculum Redesign, 2019. [12] S. D. Schafersman, "Case-based learning and its application in science education," Journal of College Science Teaching, vol. 46, no. 4, pp. 12–18, 2017. [13] R. R. Kennedy, "The power of in-class debates," Active learning in higher education, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 225-236, 2009. [14] D. T. Tiruneh, A. Verburgh, and J. Elen, "Effectiveness of critical thinking instruction in higher education," Higher Education Studies, vol. 66, no. 2, pp. 201-217, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2013.778544 [15] H. Hyytinen, A. Holma, A. Toom, R. J. Shavelson, and S. Lindblom-Ylänne, "The role of university students' epistemic beliefs in the development of critical thinking," Studies in Higher Education, vol. 44, no. 5, pp. 918-931, 2019. [16] D. H. Jonassen, Learning to solve problems: A handbook for designing problem-solving learning environments. New York: Routledge, 2010. [17] M. Lipman, Thinking in education. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1991. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ https://doi.org/10.xxxx/inquiry.v32i1.12345 https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654314551063 https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1814 https://doi.org/10.1787/7c5dc03e-en https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2013.778544 2060 Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 9, No. 5: 2046-2063, 2025 DOI: 10.55214/25768484.v9i5.7377 © 2025 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate [18] OECD, The assessment of students’ creative and critical thinking skills in higher education across OECD countries. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/05b592e2-en, 2023. [19] S. D. Brookfield, Teaching for critical thinking: Tools and techniques to help students question their assumptions. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons, 2011. [20] J. P. Gee, The anti-education era: Creating smarter students through digital learning. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013. [21] A. Bandura, Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W.H. Freeman, 1997. [22] R. M. Ryan and E. L. Deci, "Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being," American Psychologist, vol. 55, no. 1, pp. 68–78, 2000. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68 [23] R. E. Nisbett, The geography of thought: How Asians and Westerners think differently...and why. New York: Free Press, 2003. [24] A. Ahern, T. O'Connor, G. McRuairc, M. McNamara, and D. O'Donnell, "Critical thinking in the university curriculum–the impact on engineering education," European Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 37, no. 2, pp. 125- 132, 2012. https://doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2012.661224 [25] J. P. Higgins et al., "The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials," BMJ, vol. 343, p. d5928, 2011. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.d5928 [26] G. H. Guyatt et al., "GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations," Bmj, vol. 336, no. 7650, pp. 924-926, 2008. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.39489.470347.AD [27] M. A. Almulla, "Constructivism learning theory: A paradigm for students’ critical thinking, creativity, and problem solving to affect academic performance in higher education," Cogent Education, vol. 10, no. 1, p. 2172929, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2023.2172929 [28] K. J. Aston, "‘Why is this hard, to have critical thinking?’Exploring the factors affecting critical thinking with international higher education students," Active Learning in Higher Education, vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 537-550, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1177/14697874221145678 [29] O. Azkarate-Iturbe, P. Álvarez-Huerta, A. Muela, and I. Larrea, "Latent class analysis of student engagement in higher education and its relationship to cooperative mindset and critical thinking. Innovative Higher Education," Innovative Higher Education, pp. 1-21, 2025. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-025-09654-3 [30] A. Calma and M. Davies, "Assessing students’ critical thinking abilities via a systematic evaluation of essays," Studies in Higher Education, pp. 1-16, 2025. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079 [31] X. Cao, Y.-J. Lin, J.-H. Zhang, Y.-P. Tang, M.-P. Zhang, and H.-Y. Gao, "Students’ perceptions about the opportunities and challenges of ChatGPT in higher education: a cross-sectional survey based in China," Education and Information Technologies, pp. 1-20, 2025. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-025-13339-5 [32] P. Chen and Y. C. Chang, "Enhancing creative problem-solving in postgraduate courses of education management using project-based learning," International Journal of Higher Education, vol. 10, no. 6, pp. 11-21, 2021. https://doi.org/10.5430/ijhe.v10n6p11 [33] Darwin, D. Rusdin, N. Mukminatien, N. Suryati, E. D. Laksmi, and Marzuki, "Critical thinking in the AI era: An exploration of EFL students’ perceptions, benefits, and limitations," Cogent Education, vol. 11, no. 1, p. 2290342, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2024.2290342 [34] M. De la Puente, J. Torres, A. L. B. Troncoso, Y. Y. H. Meza, and J. X. M. Carrascal, "Investigating the use of chatGPT as a tool for enhancing critical thinking and argumentation skills in international relations debates among undergraduate students," Smart Learning Environments, vol. 11, no. 1, p. 55, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561- 024-00255-9 [35] A. Dissen, "A critical issue: Assessing the critical thinking skills and dispositions of undergraduate health science students," Discover Education, vol. 2, no. 1, p. 21, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44217-023-00044-z [36] A. Essien, O. T. Bukoye, X. O’Dea, and M. Kremantzis, "The influence of AI text generators on critical thinking skills in UK business schools," Studies in Higher Education, vol. 49, no. 5, pp. 865-882, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2024.2316881 [37] Y. J. F. Parra, A. M. Barriga, R. A. L. Díaz, and J. A. G. Cuesta, "Teacher education and critical thinking: Systematizing theoretical perspectives and formative experiences in Latin America," Revista de Investigación Educativa, vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 149-167, 2021. https://doi.org/10.6018/rie.416271 [38] R. Gadot and D. Tsybulsky, "Taxonomy of digital curation activities that promote critical thinking," Smart Learning Environments, vol. 12, no. 1, p. 17, 2025. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-025-00365-6 [39] A. Gandimathi and N. Zarei, "The impact of critical thinking on learning English language," Asian Journal of Social Science Research, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 25-35, 2018. [40] G. D’Northwood and J. Rattray, "What is this thing called critical thinking? Perspectives from business school academics," Innovations in Education and Teaching International, pp. 1-14, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2024.2422310 [41] M. Haghparast, N. Abdullah, A. Noorhidawati, and N. F. Hanum, "Postgraduates’ critical thinking practices while seeking for information," Malaysian Journal of Library and Information Science, vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 35-56, 2016. https://doi.org/10.22452/mjlis.vol21no3.3 https://doi.org/10.1787/05b592e2-en https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68 https://doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2012.661224 https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.d5928 https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.39489.470347.AD https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2023.2172929 https://doi.org/10.1177/14697874221145678 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-025-09654-3 https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-025-13339-5 https://doi.org/10.5430/ijhe.v10n6p11 https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2024.2290342 https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-024-00255-9 https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-024-00255-9 https://doi.org/10.1007/s44217-023-00044-z https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2024.2316881 https://doi.org/10.6018/rie.416271 https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-025-00365-6 https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2024.2422310 https://doi.org/10.22452/mjlis.vol21no3.3 2061 Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 9, No. 5: 2046-2063, 2025 DOI: 10.55214/25768484.v9i5.7377 © 2025 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate [42] Y. Han, S. Yang, S. Han, W. He, S. Bao, and J. Kong, "Exploring the relationship among technology acceptance, learner engagement and critical thinking in the Chinese college-level EFL context," Education and Information Technologies, vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 1-24, 2025. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-025-13375-1 [43] H. Lijie, S. Mat Yusoff, and A. F. Mohamad Marzaini, "Influence of AI-driven educational tools on critical thinking dispositions among university students in Malaysia: A study of key factors and correlations," Education and Information Technologies, vol. 30, no. 6, pp. 8029-8053, 2025. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-13150-8 [44] D. Hounsell, Feedback in postgraduate online learning: Perspectives and practices. In T. Fawns, G. Aitken, & D. Jones (Eds.), Online postgraduate education in a postdigital world: Beyond technology. Cham: Springer, 2021. [45] O. Jabali, B. Hamamra, and A. Ayyoub, "Critical thinking, assessment, and educational policy in Palestinian universities," International Journal for Educational Integrity, vol. 20, no. 1, p. 12, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40979-024-00160-9 [46] C. M. Kabwete, S. Kambanda, A. M. Kagwesage, and J. Murenzi, "Fighting intellectual marginalisation through critical thinking: A glimpse at mature women’s tertiary education in Rwanda," Research in Post-Compulsory Education, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 68-90, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1080/13596748.2020.1720168 [47] M. Landa-Blanco and A. Cortés-Ramos, "Psychology students' attitudes towards research: the role of critical thinking, epistemic orientation, and satisfaction with research courses," Heliyon, vol. 7, no. 12, p. e08504, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e08504 [48] N. Y. Lee, Z. Wang, and B. Lim, "The development of critical thinking: What university students have to say," Teaching in Higher Education, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 286-299, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2021.1973412 [49] L. Li, "Critical thinking from the ground up: teachers’ conceptions and practice in EFL classrooms," Teachers and Teaching, vol. 29, no. 6, pp. 571-593, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2023.2191182 [50] S. Antrobus and H. West, "‘This is all very academic’: Critical thinking in professional military education," The RUSI Journal, vol. 167, no. 3, pp. 78-86, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1080/03071847.2022.2108598 [51] O. R. Mahdi, I. A. Nassar, and H. A. I. Almuslamani, "The role of using case studies method in improving students' critical thinking skills in higher education," International Journal of Higher Education, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 297-308, 2020. https://doi.org/10.5430/ijhe.v9n2p297 [52] M. Sheybani and F. Miri, "The relationship between EFL teachers’ professional identity and their critical thinking: A structural equation modeling approach," Cogent Psychology, vol. 6, no. 1, p. 1592796, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311908.2019.1592796 [53] D. Beijaard, P. C. Meijer, and N. Verloop, "Reconsidering research on teachers’ professional identity," Teaching and Teacher Education, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 107–128, 2004. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2003.07.001 [54] P. Honey, Critical thinking questionnaire. Maidenhead, UK: Peter Honey Publications, 2004. [55] H. Odacı and E. Erzen, "Attitude toward computers and critical thinking of postgraduate students as predictors of research self-efficacy," Computers in the Schools, vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 125-141, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1080/07380569.2021.1907452 [56] A. Orhan and H. Van Le, "Cross-cultural comparison of critical thinking dispositions of Turkish and Vietnamese university students," Journal of Cultural Cognitive Science, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 1-15, 2025. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41809-025-00163-z [57] T. O'Riordan, D. E. Millard, and J. Schulz, "Is critical thinking happening? Testing content analysis schemes applied to MOOC discussion forums," Computer Applications in Engineering Education, vol. 29, no. 4, pp. 690-709, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1002/cae.22316 [58] D. M. Osborne, J. H. Byrne, D. L. Massey, and A. N. Johnston, "Use of online asynchronous discussion boards to engage students, enhance critical thinking, and foster staff-student/student-student collaboration: A mixed method study," Nurse Education Today, vol. 70, pp. 40-46, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2018.07.001 [59] P. M. Virtič, "Teaching science & technology: Components of scientific literacy and insight into the steps of research," International Journal of Science Education, vol. 44, no. 12, pp. 1916-1931, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2022.2066554 [60] S. Pu and M. Evans, "Critical thinking in the context of Chinese postgraduate students’ thesis writing: A positioning theory perspective," Language, Culture and Curriculum, vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 50-62, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1080/07908318.2018.1561898 [61] N. Ronderos et al., "Construct overlap in cross-national assessment: critical thinking in the teacher education curricula of two countries," Journal of Curriculum Studies, vol. 56, no. 4, pp. 514-535, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2023.2291234 [62] I. V. Rossi, J. D. de Lima, B. Sabatke, M. A. F. Nunes, G. E. Ramirez, and M. I. Ramirez, "Active learning tools improve the learning outcomes, scientific attitude, and critical thinking in higher education: Experiences in an online course during the COVID‐19 pandemic," Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, vol. 49, no. 6, pp. 888-903, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1002/bmb.21573 [63] A. Shamida, G. K. Sidhu, and S. M. Nawi, "Postgraduate students’ perceived and actual performance in critical reading skills," Asian Journal of University Education, vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 76-84, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-025-13375-1 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-13150-8 https://doi.org/10.1007/s40979-024-00160-9 https://doi.org/10.1080/13596748.2020.1720168 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e08504 https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2021.1973412 https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2023.2191182 https://doi.org/10.1080/03071847.2022.2108598 https://doi.org/10.5430/ijhe.v9n2p297 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311908.2019.1592796 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2003.07.001 https://doi.org/10.1080/07380569.2021.1907452 https://doi.org/10.1007/s41809-025-00163-z https://doi.org/10.1002/cae.22316 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2018.07.001 https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2022.2066554 https://doi.org/10.1080/07908318.2018.1561898 https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2023.2291234 https://doi.org/10.1002/bmb.21573 2062 Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 9, No. 5: 2046-2063, 2025 DOI: 10.55214/25768484.v9i5.7377 © 2025 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate [64] H. Sheikhbardsiri, H. Sheikhasadi, S. A. Mahani, and M. M. D. Mohamadi, "Emotional intelligence and learning strategies of postgraduate students at Kerman University of Medical Sciences in the southeast of Iran," Journal of Education and Health Promotion, vol. 9, no. 1, p. 66, 2020. https://doi.org/10.4103/jehp.jehp_636_19 [65] J. M. Smith and A. G. Drybrough, "Chinese international master’s students’ experiences of a retreat to support critical thinking: A positioning theory approach," Journal of Further and Higher Education, vol. 48, no. 9-10, pp. 958- 970, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2023.2276490 [66] A. J. Tan, J. L. Davies, R. I. Nicolson, and T. Karaminis, "Learning critical thinking skills online: Can precision teaching help?," Educational Technology Research and Development, vol. 71, no. 3, pp. 1275-1296, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-023-10237-0 [67] J. Tang, "The impact of smart learning technologies on students’ cognitive competence: Enhancing critical thinking," Education and Information Technologies, pp. 1-17, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-13250-5 [68] C.-C. Teo, X. Wang, S. C. Tan, and J. W. Y. Lee, "Enhancing critical thinking in operations management education: a framework with visual-based mapping for interdisciplinary and systems thinking," Higher Education Pedagogies, vol. 8, no. 1, p. 2216388, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1080/23752696.2023.2216388 [69] E. Terblanche and B. De Clercq, "A critical thinking competency framework for accounting students," Accounting Education, vol. 30, no. 4, pp. 325-354, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1080/09639284.2021.1913614 [70] M. Turner and M. Tyler, "Demonstrating critical thinking in accounting: applying a competency framework," Accounting Education, vol. 32, no. 6, pp. 713-734, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1080/09639284.2022.2105653 [71] L. Veliz and M. Veliz-Campos, "An interrogation of the role of critical thinking in English language pedagogy in Chile," Teaching in Higher Education, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 47-62, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2018.1456424 [72] A. Wali and A. Popal, "The emerging issues and impacts of technology in classroom learning," International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET), vol. 15, no. 15, pp. 237-245, 2020. [73] C. Weng, C. Chen, and X. Ai, "A pedagogical study on promoting students' deep learning through design-based learning," International Journal of Technology and Design Education, vol. 33, no. 4, pp. 1653-1674, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-022-09789-4 [74] L. Yang and R. B. S. Mohd, "The relationship between critical thinking and the community of inquiry model: A quantitative study among EFL university students in China," International Journal of Adolescence and Youth, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 965-973, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1080/02673843.2020.1814359 [75] X. Yin, M. R. Bin Mohd Saad, and H. Binti Abdul Halim, "Technology-enhanced social learning (TSL) to foster critical thinking dispositions and thinking in writing," Cogent Education, vol. 11, no. 1, p. 2341584, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2024.2341584 [76] L. Zhao, J. Liu, A. Karimov, and M. Saarela, "Assessing and developing college students’ digital learning power: An empirical study based on questionnaire survey in a Chinese university," International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, vol. 22, no. 1, p. 13, 2025. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-025-00514-4 [77] R. H. Shroff, F. S. T. Ting, and W. H. Lam, "Development and validation of an instrument to measure students’ perceptions of technology-enabled active learning," Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, vol. 35, no. 4, pp. 1– 17, 2019. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.4194 [78] M. García and R. Sánchez, "Argumentation skills in higher education: A qualitative analysis," Educational Studies, vol. 47, no. 2, pp. 173–189, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1080/03055698.2020.1813747 [79] A. Yadav, D. Subedi, M. A. Lundeberg, and C. F. Bunting, "Problem‐based learning: Influence on students' learning in an electrical engineering course," Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 100, no. 2, pp. 253-280, 2011. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2011.tb00019.x [80] B. Shneiderman, "Bridging the gap between ethics and practice: Guidelines for reliable, safe, and trustworthy human- centered AI systems," ACM Transactions on Interactive Intelligent Systems (TiiS), vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 1-31, 2020. [81] C. Zhai, S. Wibowo, and L. D. Li, "The effects of over-reliance on AI dialogue systems on students' cognitive abilities: A systematic review," Smart Learning Environments, vol. 11, no. 1, p. 28, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-024- 00228-7 [82] S. Li, X. Ye, and W. Chen, "Practice and effectiveness of “nursing case-based learning” course on nursing student's critical thinking ability: A comparative study," Nurse Education in Practice, vol. 36, pp. 91-96, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nepr.2019.03.007 [83] L. Agustina and U. A. Ro'isatin, "The efficacy of case-based learning model integrated with critical thinking skills to improve EFL learners’ reading comprehension," Journal of Languages and Language Teaching, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 1443- 1454, 2024. [84] J. L. Bishop and M. A. Verleger, "The flipped classroom: A survey of the evidence," IEEE Transactions on Education, vol. 62, no. 4, pp. 242–248, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1109/TE.2018.2876928 [85] S. Freeman et al., "Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics," Proceedings of the national academy of sciences, vol. 111, no. 23, pp. 8410-8415, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1319030111 https://doi.org/10.4103/jehp.jehp_636_19 https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2023.2276490 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-023-10237-0 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-13250-5 https://doi.org/10.1080/23752696.2023.2216388 https://doi.org/10.1080/09639284.2021.1913614 https://doi.org/10.1080/09639284.2022.2105653 https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2018.1456424 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-022-09789-4 https://doi.org/10.1080/02673843.2020.1814359 https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2024.2341584 https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-025-00514-4 https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.4194 https://doi.org/10.1080/03055698.2020.1813747 https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2011.tb00019.x https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-024-00228-7 https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-024-00228-7 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nepr.2019.03.007 https://doi.org/10.1109/TE.2018.2876928 https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1319030111 2063 Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 9, No. 5: 2046-2063, 2025 DOI: 10.55214/25768484.v9i5.7377 © 2025 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate [86] H. Peterson and D. Rosen, "A cautionary note on AI in education: The risks of over-reliance," Educational Technology & Society, vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 45-58, 2021. [87] M. Iqbal, N. U. Khan, and M. Imran, "The role of artificial intelligence (AI) in transforming educational practices: Opportunities, challenges, and implications," Qlantic Journal of Social Sciences, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 348-359, 2024. https://doi.org/10.55737/qjss.349319430 [88] R. G. Arim, "Parental influence on critical thinking development: A cross-cultural perspective," International Journal of Educational Research, vol. 6, pp. 45–60, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2020.101523 [89] C. A. Kilgo, C. W. Phillips, G. L. Martin, E. Campbell, and E. T. Pascarella, "Getting critical about critical thinking: The role of parental education on first-generation students' cognitive gains in college," Journal of College Student Development, vol. 59, no. 6, pp. 756-761, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2018.0071 [90] M. M. Brabeck, "Critical thinking skills and reflective judgment development: Redefining the aims of higher education," Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 23-34, 1983. https://doi.org/10.1016/0193- 3973(83)90003-1 [91] Y. Hacıoğlu and F. Gülhan, "The effects of STEM education on the students’ critical thinking skills and STEM perceptions," Journal of Education in Science Environment and health, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 139-155, 2021. [92] M. Yeou, "An investigation of students’ acceptance of Moodle in a blended learning setting using technology acceptance model," Journal of Educational Technology Systems, vol. 44, no. 3, pp. 300-318, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047239515619330 [93] P. Gagné, "Limitations of standardized testing for assessing critical thinking," Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, vol. 39, no. 4, pp. 3–11, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1111/emip.12315 [94] K. Huhn, The role of standardized tests in assessing clinical reasoning and critical thinking (Clinical Reasoning and Decision Making in Physical Therapy). London: Routledge, 2024. [95] C. Beck and G. Blume, "Barriers to critical thinking in higher education: Perspectives from faculty," Journal of Higher Education Teaching and Learning, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 1–15, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1002/jhe.2020.14.1.1 [96] A. Rodríguez, L. Martínez, R. Gómez, and P. Sánchez, "Faculty training and its impact on critical thinking instruction," Teaching in Higher Education, vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 512-528, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2018.1556473 [97] K. Highfield and B. Goodwin, "Ethical implications of AI in education: A critical overview," AI & Ethics, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 345–359. , 2023. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-023-00248-0 https://doi.org/10.55737/qjss.349319430 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2020.101523 https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2018.0071 https://doi.org/10.1016/0193-3973(83)90003-1 https://doi.org/10.1016/0193-3973(83)90003-1 https://doi.org/10.1177/0047239515619330 https://doi.org/10.1111/emip.12315 https://doi.org/10.1002/jhe.2020.14.1.1 https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2018.1556473 https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-023-00248-0