Critical Thinking in Distance Education: The Challenges in a Decade (2016–2025) and the Role of Artificial Intelligence

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for your work on this manuscript. Below are several points that require attention:

(1) Abstract: 
The abstract lacks key information. The authors should clearly state the methodology, sample size, and country where the study took place. This context only becomes apparent in the results section with the mention of the Greek education system.

(2) Citation and Punctuation Errors: 
There are multiple citation and punctuation issues throughout the manuscript. According to APA 7th edition, in-text citations with more than three authors should list the first author followed by “et al.” This rule is not followed on pages 1, 2, 4, and others.
Additionally, there are missing periods and unmatched parentheses on pages 1 and 5. A detailed review for consistency is needed.

(3) Missing References:
Some in-text citations do not appear in the reference list, such as:
- Taimur & Sattar (2020)
- Dewey (1933)

(4) Inconsistent Publication Years:
There are discrepancies in the publication years of cited works. For example:
Facione is cited as (1990) in the text but listed as (1989) in the references.
Cross-check all entries for accuracy.

(5) Length and Clarity of Results:
The results section is too long and difficult to follow. The authors should prioritize clarity and relevance, focusing on analysis rather than listing participant quotes only.

(6) Imbalanced Structure:
The results section spans nine pages, while the discussion covers only two. A more thorough and analytical discussion of the findings is necessary.

(7) Conclusion Structure:
The conclusion is overly long. It should follow a concise structure:
- Purpose of the study
- Key findings
- Recommendations
All within a single paragraph.

(8) Placement of Key Definitions:
A definition of critical thinking appears at the end of the conclusion. This definition would be more effective at the beginning of the paragraph discussing various definitions of the term.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

(1) Abstract:

The abstract lacks key information. The authors should clearly state the methodology, sample size, and country where the study took place. This context only becomes apparent in the results section with the mention of the Greek education system.

I would like to thank you very much for implementing all the suggested corrections.

(2) Citation and Punctuation Errors:

There are multiple citation and punctuation issues throughout the manuscript. According to APA 7th edition, in-text citations with more than three authors should list the first author followed by “et al.” This rule is not followed on pages 1, 2, 4, and others.

Additionally, there are missing periods and unmatched parentheses on pages 1 and 5. A detailed review for consistency is needed.

Improvements have been made.

(4) Inconsistent Publication Years:

There are discrepancies in the publication years of cited works. For example:

Facione is cited as (1990) in the text but listed as (1989) in the references.

Cross-check all entries for accuracy.

Fixed all

(5) Length and Clarity of Results:

The results section is too long and difficult to follow. The authors should prioritize clarity and relevance, focusing on analysis rather than listing participant quotes only.

A great effort was made and we followed the reviewer's comment as much as possible.

(6) Imbalanced Structure:

The results section spans nine pages, while the discussion covers only two. A more thorough and analytical discussion of the findings is necessary.

(7) Conclusion Structure:

The conclusion is overly long. It should follow a concise structure:

- Purpose of the study

- Key findings

- Recommendations

All within a single paragraph.

A great deal of effort was made to achieve all this.

(8) Placement of Key Definitions:

A definition of critical thinking appears at the end of the conclusion. This definition would be more effective at the beginning of the paragraph discussing various definitions of the term.

This could not be done because, semantically and conceptually, it matched the definition we arrived at in the end.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Review for:        Educational Science

Of MS Entitled: Critical thinking in distance education: The challenges in a decade (2016-2025) and the role of Artificial Intelligence

Summary

This study is focused on the issue of how to cultivate critical thought via online learning.  The research was primarily qualitative, involving a thematic analysis related to perceptions around critical thought across two distinct contexts; a 2016 class and a 2025 class.  Notably, generative AI made its splash between these two dates, so the comparison allowed the authors to learn more about the impact of AI on those perceptions of critical thought.  The authors ultimately identify and discuss 9 themes related to critical thought in online education.  Perhaps the most worrisome of the 9 is the perception that educators are, by and large, doing a very poor job “cultivating critical thought”.

Review Proper

Overall this work provides a nice snapshot of the challenges of teaching and learning critical thought from both a student and tutor perspective.  It highlights current perceptions of things that are working, and things that are not.  As such it provides a good resource for educators to reflect on and perhaps even to share with students (though likely in a more summarized form).

The methods seemed appropriate, the analyses as well, and the conclusions seemed to flow accurately from the analyses.  I saw not critical flaws in design or process and I have no reason to be skeptical about the primary conclusions reached.  Given all this, my recommendation will be to publish, with the author considering some of the comments that follow, but ultimately making their own decisions (after some serious critical thought) in terms of what revisions they feel would strengthen their narrative.

So a few points to consider.  Unlike concept knowledge critical thinking is a skill, and unlike knowledge in general skills are developed with repeated structured practice, preferably within a context that provides support, structure and regular feedback.  I would have liked to have seen this distinction highlighted as I believe many educators do not clearly see that skill development is a different game and requires different techniques (hence all of the active learning highlighted here as a path to developing critical thought). 

I would also have loved to see some recommendations coming from all this.  If I am an educator who cares about nurturing critical thought in my students, what have we learned here that can help me do that better?

I also found the AI discussion a little … optimistic.  To very many educators now AI is being used by students to escape the cognitive practice needed to develop skills like critical thought.  Yes it may also be used innovatively to develop it, but I don’t think most educators could bring to mind examples of how (whereas they can bring to mind many example of students using it NOT to think critically themselves).  If anything the former view is the one much more strongly held and I felt it could be represented better here, and perhaps again some guidance could be provided.  What can I do to push my students to use AI to their benefit?

Here are some more minor comments for consideration …

• The first parapraph, in my opinion, mixes together all sorts of “cognitive capabilities” roughly related to executive functioning and seems to say that are all aspects of critical thinking. Are they?  Is not critical thought a much more specific thing related to the ability to discriminate among things on the basis of quality?  As one who studies critical thought, I felt this paragraph added more confusion as to what critical thought is then it added clarity.  Perhaps the authors should take the time to clearly define what critical thought it from there perspective and maybe how it related to things like self-determined learning or autonomy (which now are claimed as prerequisites for critical thought … in what sense?) … NOTE, now that I’m further along I see the authors take this on directly which is great, but I’m still not a fan of the first paragraph.
• I was a little confused by the claims that “critical thinking is evolving” … at times they seemed to be suggesting the concept itself continually shifts and changes (does it?) at other points I thought maybe they meant an individuals critical thought evolves? I just couldn’t pin down what exactly they meant by this and what the evidence for it was.  Is it not just the case that different scientists emphasize different aspects?
• Some wording in the abstract, beginning with the first sentence, feels grammatically stilted and is hard to parse. It might be worth have a second set of eyes go through that and tighten up the writing.
• Generally speaking, acronyms make a paper easier to write, but harder to read. They should only be used when they’ve become almost a term in and of themselves (i.e., FBI, RT).  The second sentence of this paper begins with “In distance learning PP, …” and I am left thinking “PP?  Professional Practice?  Something else?” … why not just unpack it for the reader?
• At times you refer to things as “phase A”. Anytime to refer to something “as if” you were using a formal name, then it should appear as “Phase A” with the p capitalized.  So you would refer to say “the third trial” or “Trial 3” … same with things like Experiment 1, Participant 8, etc
• Figure 1 … the centre label is not readable

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Early one especially the wording seems a little clumsy, but it seemed to improve once we left the introduction.

Author Response

Overall this work provides a nice snapshot of the challenges of teaching and learning critical thought from both a student and tutor perspective. It highlights current perceptions of things that are working, and things that are not. As such it provides a good resource for educators to reflect on and perhaps even to share with students (though likely in a more summarized form).

The methods seemed appropriate, the analyses as well, and the conclusions seemed to flow accurately from the analyses. I saw not critical flaws in design or process and I have no reason to be skeptical about the primary conclusions reached. Given all this, my recommendation will be to publish, with the author considering some of the comments that follow, but ultimately making their own decisions (after some serious critical thought) in terms of what revisions they feel would strengthen their narrative.

So a few points to consider. Unlike concept knowledge critical thinking is a skill, and unlike knowledge in general skills are developed with repeated structured practice, preferably within a context that provides support, structure and regular feedback. I would have liked to have seen this distinction highlighted as I believe many educators do not clearly see that skill development is a different game and requires different techniques (hence all of the active learning highlighted here as a path to developing critical thought).

I would also have loved to see some recommendations coming from all this. If I am an educator who cares about nurturing critical thought in my students, what have we learned here that can help me do that better?

I also found the AI discussion a little … optimistic. To very many educators now AI is being used by students to escape the cognitive practice needed to develop skills like critical thought. Yes it may also be used innovatively to develop it, but I don’t think most educators could bring to mind examples of how (whereas they can bring to mind many example of students using it NOT to think critically themselves). If anything the former view is the one much more strongly held and I felt it could be represented better here, and perhaps again some guidance could be provided. What can I do to push my students to use AI to their benefit? 

Thank you very much for your comments and dialogue. They are all very pertinent and have been taken into considaration.

 

The first parapraph, in my opinion, mixes together all sorts of “cognitive capabilities” roughly related to executive functioning and seems to say that are all aspects of critical thinking. Are they? Is not critical thought a much more specific thing related to the ability to discriminate among things on the basis of quality? As one who studies critical thought, I felt this paragraph added more confusion as to what critical thought is then it added clarity. Perhaps the authors should take the time to clearly define what critical thought it from there perspective and maybe how it related to things like self-determined learning or autonomy (which now are claimed as prerequisites for critical thought … in what sense?) … NOTE, now that I’m further along I see the authors take this on directly which is great, but I’m still not a fan of the first paragraph.

That's a very good point, and I think it's clearer now.

• I was a little confused by the claims that “critical thinking is evolving” … at times they seemed to be suggesting the concept itself continually shifts and changes (does it?) at other points I thought maybe they meant an individuals critical thought evolves? I just couldn’t pin down what exactly they meant by this and what the evidence for it was. Is it not just the case that different scientists emphasize different aspects?

Revised according to the comments from the reviewer.

• Some wording in the abstract, beginning with the first sentence, feels grammatically stilted and is hard to parse. It might be worth have a second set of eyes go through that and tighten up the writing. Revised according to the comments from the reviewer.
• Generally speaking, acronyms make a paper easier to write, but harder to read. They should only be used when they’ve become almost a term in and of themselves (i.e., FBI, RT). The second sentence of this paper begins with “In distance learning PP, …” and I am left thinking “PP? Professional Practice? Something else?” … why not just unpack it for the reader? We were working on clarifying this issue.
• At times you refer to things as “phase A”. Anytime to refer to something “as if” you were using a formal name, then it should appear as “Phase A” with the p capitalized. So you would refer to say “the third trial” or “Trial 3” … same with things like Experiment 1, Participant 8, etc 
• Figure 1 … the centre label is not readable  We fix it.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I would like to thank the authors for their efforts in preparing the revised version. I believe the manuscript is ready for publication. Good luck!