人工智能工具使用对批判性思维的影响综述——基于CiteSpace的可视化分析

A Review of Research on the Impact of Artificial Intelligence Tool Use on Critical Thinking—A Visualization Analysis Using CiteSpace

摘要: 为系统梳理人工智能工具使用对批判性思维影响的研究动态与知识演进，本文基于CiteSpace可视化分析技术，以Web of Science核心合集2017~2025年文献为数据来源构建知识图谱。结果显示：该领域以地域内小团体合作为主，跨机构与跨区域合作相对薄弱；通过关键词共现与聚类分析，识别出人工智能技术本体、批判性思维培养机制、人机协同实践路径三大研究热点；演进脉络可划分为技术基础探索期(2017~2019年)、教育应用转型期(2020~2022年)和认知机制深化期(2023~2025年)三个阶段。结论指出，现有研究存在视角碎片化与静态化、方法实证效度不足、文化适切性与伦理框架缺位等局限；未来需从理论建构、方法创新与实践转化层面协同推进：方法上融合多模态过程数据与认知神经指标以动态揭示作用机制，情境上开展跨文化比较与群体细分以检验调节效应，实践上设计纵向干预与认知脚手架以验证有效性，并建立文化响应性伦理指南，实现技术赋能与思维发展的良性互构。

Abstract: To systematically review research trends and knowledge evolution regarding the impact of artificial intelligence tools on critical thinking, this paper uses CiteSpace visualization analysis technology to construct a knowledge map based on literature from the Web of Science Core Collection spanning 2017~2025. The results show that collaboration in this field is primarily limited to small, geographically concentrated groups, while cross-institutional and cross-regional collaboration remains relatively weak; Through keyword co-occurrence and clustering analysis, three major research hotspots were identified: the ontology of AI technology, mechanisms for fostering critical thinking, and practical pathways for human-machine collaboration; the evolutionary trajectory can be divided into three phases: the technological foundation exploration phase (2017~2019), the educational application transition phase (2020~2022), and the cognitive mechanism deepening phase (2023~2025). The conclusions point out that existing research suffers from limitations such as fragmented and static perspectives, insufficient empirical validity of methods, and a lack of cultural appropriateness and ethical frameworks; Moving forward, efforts must be advanced in a coordinated manner across the dimensions of theory building, methodological innovation, and translation into practice: methodologically, by integrating multimodal process data with cognitive neurobiological indicators to dynamically elucidate mechanisms of action; contextually, by conducting cross-cultural comparisons and group-specific analyses to examine moderating effects; and practically, by designing longitudinal interventions and cognitive scaffolding to validate effectiveness, while establishing culturally responsive ethical guidelines to achieve a virtuous cycle of mutual construction between technological empowerment and thinking development.