Rationale 

Generative AI tools present a paradox for educators. On one hand, they have the ability to powerfully enhance learning, but on the other hand they threaten to undermine critical thinking (CT) by providing students with quick answers that bypass genuine cognitive engagement. Teachers report a central dilemma: How can AI be used as a scaffold for CT rather than a shortcut that replaces it?                

While existing research has thoroughly explored AI’s potential and risks, there is very little practical, classroom-tested guidance on the specific design choices and prompting strategies teachers can use to redirect AI’s role from answer generator to thinking partner.This SoTL study addresses that gap by documenting how four secondary teachers designed, implemented, and reflected on AI-supported tasks intended to evoke critical thinking. This research is relevant to secondary school teachers who must manage their institutions’ prohibitive stance on AI, student AI use, and the challenge of developing the critical thinking skills needed for the 21st-Century. 

                           

Methods 

This qualitative study employed a co-design approach with a group of four secondary school teachers, including myself.At the time of writing, my study is still in progress; however, the data collected will capture the full arc of teacher reflection and interpretation across multiple phases. 

 

The initial 90-minute co-design session was used to discuss how we are using AI in our classes to support CT. The session began with us agreeing on a definition of CT and then the majority of the time was devoted to collaborative design. We explored how AI outputs can help scaffold CT, and we discussed any challenges that are typically found when integrating AI. Following the co-design session, we had a week to implement any ideas discussed in the co-design session and try to use AI as a scaffold to enhance CT.  After the AI-supported Iesson, all teachers filled out a reflective journal entry. A final collaborative reflection session is scheduled to debrief outcomes and capture how our thinking has evolved. To analyze the data, I am using thematic analysis (Braun and Clarke, 2006)  and discourse analysis. 

 

Results 

Preliminary analysis has identified three emerging themes that directly address the research questions: 

• The Four Pillars of Critical Thinking – teachers have described critical thinking as requiring conceptual, self-regulatory, emotional, and evaluative components working together. 

• The Consequence Gap – students lack real-world stakes for their decisions, inhibiting critical thinking development. 

• The Risk That AI Reinforces Student Biases – teachers worry about AI’s potential to reinforce rather than challenge students’ existing assumptions. 

These themes will be illustrated at the conference with teacher voices and concrete examples of prompts and materials. 

 

Conclusion 

This SoTL study contributes both theoretical and practical insights. Theoretically, it offers a refined understanding of how teachers conceptualize critical thinking in relation to AI, revealing the  “consequence gap” as an unexplored barrier to critical thinking development. Practically, it provides tangible design principles and prompting strategies that educators can adapt. 

 

By the time of the conference, full analysis will be complete, enabling presentation of a comprehensive thematic map, discourse analysis revealing how teachers collaboratively constructed these strategies, and concrete examples of teacher-designed prompts and materials. Attendees will leave with both conceptual frameworks for understanding AI’s pedagogical role and practical strategies for integrating AI as a scaffold for critical thinking rather than a shortcut that undermines it. 

 

 

References 

Braun, V. and Clarke, V. (2006) ‘Using thematic analysis in psychology’, Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), pp. 77–101. doi: 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.