Redefining Critical Thinking: The Role of AI and Vertical Development in Shaping the Future of Higher Education

Since John Dewey popularized the educational ideal of critical thinking over a century ago, it has become a cornerstone of higher education, shaping its reputation, value, and quality — the very essence of its DNA. In light of this, one of the more intriguing outcomes of AI's rapid evolution is that it compels us to critically reflect on the way we think and learn, not just at a horizontal level (focused on skill acquisition), but also at a vertical level (focused on cognitive growth and complexity).

Traditional models of critical thinking often highlight a hierarchy where lower-order cognitive processes like memorization, description, and comprehension give way to higher-order faculties such as analysis, synthesis, and evaluation. While AI systems like OpenAI’s ChatGPT excel at the lower levels, efficiently processing and regurgitating information, their ability to engage in deeper critical thought has been questionable. However, OpenAI is releasing a new model called o1, the first in a planned series of “reasoning” models that have been trained to answer more complex questions, faster than a human can.  Early evidence suggests that large language models often present an illusion of intelligence — offering articulate and seemingly learned responses that mirror popular language patterns rather than demonstrate true critical reasoning. These models are trained on vast datasets that span far beyond academic literature, making them adept at reflecting common language usage but not necessarily at constructing rigorous arguments. However, as projects like ARG-tech at the University of Dundee demonstrate, it’s only a matter of time before machine learning advances enable AI to better handle higher-order critical thinking.

This shift forces us to reconsider what we mean by critical thinking and, by extension, the very purpose of higher education. Critical thinking cannot remain a static or fixed skillset; instead, it must evolve alongside students’ abilities to handle greater complexity and ambiguity. This is where vertical development becomes crucial. Unlike traditional (or horizontal) approaches to learning, which focus on acquiring new skills and knowledge, vertical development emphasizes the expansion of a person’s capacity to think more systemically, integrate different perspectives, and navigate complex, evolving problems.

In the context of higher education, vertical development means moving beyond the traditional benchmarks of knowledge acquisition to cultivate students' ability to think in more nuanced, layered, and dynamic ways. This kind of growth is particularly important in an era where AI can perform many of the tasks traditionally seen as requiring intellectual prowess. For students to stand out and thrive in this environment, they need to develop the capability to adapt to new challenges, apply their knowledge flexibly, and engage with complex systems in innovative ways. Vertical development helps build these capacities, enabling students to not only engage with critical thinking at a higher level but also to do so more adaptively and effectively.

Despite its longstanding significance, critical thinking remains a nebulous and often misunderstood concept, even among those who study it. While there is some consensus around its importance, the broad and abstract nature of “criticality” spans a wide spectrum of interpretations across disciplines. This complexity, combined with its idealized role as a marker of educational quality, has led to confusion in both teaching and practice. The result is what some have called a “paradox of importance versus use”: we emphasize the value of critical thinking but often sidestep the challenges of effectively teaching and applying it. Vertical development provides a solution to this paradox by offering a framework that prioritizes not just the accumulation of thinking skills but the cultivation of a more expansive mindset capable of deeper, more transformative thought.

A parallel dilemma exists in the way academic standards, including those related to critical thinking and development, are under-researched and inconsistently applied. If academic rigor is not as uniformly high as we claim, it may be difficult to convince employers and students alike of the value of higher education degrees. As the standards and relevance of these qualifications come under increasing scrutiny, we face a pivotal moment. It is not enough to rely on traditional perceptions of academic quality; these standards must be continuously tested, evaluated, and adapted. Vertical development plays a key role here, as it encourages students and educators alike to engage in an ongoing process of growth, reflection, and learning. As the Sicilian novelist de Lampedusa famously warned: “If we want things to stay the same, things are going to have to change.”

To address this challenge at a curriculum level, we may need to reconsider our approach to teaching critical thinking and emphasize vertical development as a core element of academic growth. One potential solution is to move away from the abstract term “critical thinking” altogether and instead build frameworks around more concrete and demonstrable skills like “analysis” and “evaluation,” while embedding vertical growth opportunities throughout the curriculum. Toolkits, like those we have developed, allow students to assess their own and their peers’ critical abilities by ranking the quality of various arguments. This not only helps students engage with critical thinking but also enhances their understanding of assessment and feedback, fostering both horizontal and vertical development.

One effective way to reduce anxiety around peer feedback is to use AI-generated content as a neutral object of critique. By practicing with AI-generated material, students can develop the reflective and meta-cognitive skills needed to navigate the complexities of critical thought, while also expanding their capacity for higher-level thinking. Embedding these activities within assessments, such as portfolios or reflective essays, can further reinforce both critical skills and vertical development, encouraging students to think in progressively more complex and integrated ways.

To clarify the often confusing expectations surrounding critical thinking, mapping exercises can help students visualize the “critical landscape” of their course. These maps can also help instructors coordinate their efforts at a program level, reducing redundancy and promoting a progressive development of critical and vertical skills. Open discussions about critical thinking, while sometimes intimidating for both teachers and students, are crucial in this process, especially given the power dynamics involved in determining what qualifies as “critical.”

At the heart of this effort should be initiatives to improve the quality of assessment and feedback, such as engaging in social calibration activities and appointing “critical champions” within departments or faculties. These leaders can foster cross-campus and inter-institutional dialogue, ensuring that critical thinking is not just an abstract goal but a tangible outcome of the educational process. Vertical development, in particular, should be championed as an essential framework for preparing students to not only survive but thrive in an increasingly complex and uncertain world.

By rethinking how we approach critical thinking and incorporating vertical development into the heart of higher education, we can ensure that students graduate not just with knowledge and skills, but with the adaptive, nuanced thinking needed to lead and innovate in the AI age. In this way, AI can serve as a catalyst to enhance human thought, rather than a substitute for it, and higher education can fulfill its mission of preparing the next generation of leaders for the complexities of the future.