Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
The increasing use of artificial intelligence (AI) in higher education raises concerns about whether students possess sufficient AI literacy to critically evaluate AI-generated information. However, frequent access to AI tools does not necessarily indicate that students possess sufficient competencies to evaluate AI-generated information critically. This study aims to examine the relationship between AI literacy and critical thinking skills among university students. A quantitative correlational survey was conducted among 100 undergraduate students who had prior experience using AI applications for academic purposes. Data were collected using a structured questionnaire consisting of measures of AI literacy and critical thinking skills, with responses recorded on a five-point Likert scale. AI literacy was assessed through four dimensions: AI understanding, AI application, AI evaluation, and AI ethics, while critical thinking was measured through analysis, evaluation, inference, and interpretation. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, Pearson product-moment correlation, and simple linear regression at a significance level of 0.05. The results indicate that students demonstrated relatively high levels of AI literacy (M = 3.78, SD = 0.46) and critical thinking skills (M = 3.71, SD = 0.43). AI literacy showed a positive and statistically significant relationship with critical thinking (r = .62, p < .001), while regression analysis indicated that aI literacy accounted for 38.4% of the variance in critical thinking scores in the regression model, indicating a significant statistical association. The findings indicate that AI literacy is associated with critical thinking, highlighting the potential value of incorporating critical evaluation, information verification, and ethical reasoning into AI-related learning activities. Future research should employ larger samples and longitudinal or experimental designs to strengthen causal explanations.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Cahyati et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: