TY - JOUR
T1 - Critical Thinking Assessment in Higher Education
T2 - A Mixed-Methods Comparative Analysis of AI and Human Evaluator
AU - Trikoili, Anna
AU - Georgiou, Despoina
AU - Pappa, Christina Ioanna
AU - Pittich, Daniel
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2025 The Author(s). Published with license by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC.
PY - 2025
Y1 - 2025
N2 - This article investigates the potential of using Artificial Intelligence (AI) to assess students’ critical thinking skills in higher education. With the growing adoption of AI technologies in educational assessment, there are prospects for streamlining evaluation processes. However, integrating AI in critical thinking assessment remains underexplored. To address this gap, we compare the grading of an educator with that generated by ChatGPT on a critical thinking test for university students. We employ a mixed-methods approach: (a) a quantitative comparison of scores and (b) a thematic analysis to explore the rationale behind the scores. The findings suggest that while AI offers broader contextual feedback, human evaluators provide precision and adherence to grading rubrics, and that universities should consider a hybrid, human and AI evaluation approach. This study contributes to the discourse on how to integrate AI into assessment practices in higher education while addressing issues of transparency and interpretability.
AB - This article investigates the potential of using Artificial Intelligence (AI) to assess students’ critical thinking skills in higher education. With the growing adoption of AI technologies in educational assessment, there are prospects for streamlining evaluation processes. However, integrating AI in critical thinking assessment remains underexplored. To address this gap, we compare the grading of an educator with that generated by ChatGPT on a critical thinking test for university students. We employ a mixed-methods approach: (a) a quantitative comparison of scores and (b) a thematic analysis to explore the rationale behind the scores. The findings suggest that while AI offers broader contextual feedback, human evaluators provide precision and adherence to grading rubrics, and that universities should consider a hybrid, human and AI evaluation approach. This study contributes to the discourse on how to integrate AI into assessment practices in higher education while addressing issues of transparency and interpretability.
KW - Artificial intelligence in education (AIEd)
KW - ChatGPT
KW - critical thinking
KW - higher education assessment
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=105005516195&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1080/10447318.2025.2499164
DO - 10.1080/10447318.2025.2499164
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:105005516195
SN - 1044-7318
JO - International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction
JF - International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction
ER -