Beyond Tool Adoption: A Practical Five-Stage Developmental Continuum for AI Literacy in Higher Education

Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) has entered classrooms faster than teachers have been prepared to use it well, producing a GenAI literacy lag in which technological diffusion outpaces educators' conceptual, pedagogical, and ethical readiness. Established AI literacy frameworks predate the widespread adoption of large language models and, while acknowledging ethics, position it as a discrete competency rather than a constitutive commitment, with equity and agency as supplementary design principles. Recent GenAI-specific efforts address isolated features but remain fragmented. We introduce the Responsible AI Literacy in Education (RAIL-Ed) framework, developed through a systematic review and qualitative framework analysis of 67 studies (2023-2025), grounded in critical, pragmatist, sociocultural, and human-centered traditions (Freire, Dewey, Vygotsky, Shneiderman). RAIL-Ed specifies six interdependent pillars: Technical Fluency, Critical Evaluation, Human-AI Collaboration, Contextual Awareness, Ethical Reasoning, and Empowered Agency, marked by three commitments. It is integrative: the absence of any pillar produces a characteristic pedagogical failure. It is developmental: a three-level rubric (Emerging, Competent, Advanced) specifies how each pillar matures across the K-12 teacher-preparation continuum. It is dialectical: the same generative affordance can deepen or displace learning depending on the literacy a teacher brings to it, making the cultivation of that literacy, not the adoption of the tool, the object of design. By treating ethics, equity, and agency as constitutive, RAIL-Ed offers a theoretically grounded basis for curriculum design, teacher education, and policy, aligned with the UNESCO AI Competency Framework for Teachers and the OECD/European Commission AILit Framework. The framework is conceptual, advancing falsifiable propositions for empirical validation.

As generative artificial intelligence becomes one of the most significant systems of knowledge production in our society today, questions relating to who can access and shape that production grow increasingly important in our discourse. This paper argues that the existing frameworks for AI literacy, which are dominated by technical competency and responsible-use principles, are insufficient because they enforce a "consumer" orientation toward AI rather than fostering genuine epistemic agency. Based upon Foucault's concept of power-knowledge, Freire's pedagogy of critical consciousness, and scholarship of digital literacy, this paper proposes a reconceptualization of AI literacy as a critical practice that equips individuals not just to use AI systems, but to critically evaluate them, resist their structuring assumptions, and participate in their governance. The paper further argues that unequal access to AI tools in society recapitulates longstanding epistemic injustices, and that a literacy framework oriented toward empowerment must account for these structural inequities. A three-part framework of AI literacy based on the notions of contextual use, critical interrogation, and participatory governance frames this literacy as a cultivation of epistemic "agents" rather than the training of competent consumers of AI-generated information.

Recent evidence reported by Tully, Longoni, and Appel (2025) suggests that lower artificial intelligence (AI) literacy predicts greater receptivity toward AI. We revisit this claim using the public data from Study 3 of that article, which measures past usage of five AI tool categories on a five-point frequency scale. We first reproduce the negative association between AI literacy and aggregate AI usage using OLS on participant-level averages, binary logit, ordered logit, and multinomial logit specifications. We then show that the aggregate relationship masks substantial heterogeneity by tool type. In our demographic-adjusted primary specification, AI literacy does not significantly predict text AI usage (ordered-logit $β$ = -0.090, p = .387), whereas it remains a strong predictor of non-text AI adoption ($β$ = -0.377, p < .001). The non-text effect is also robust under Tully et al.'s original Study 3 control specification ($β$ = -0.502, p < .001). Binary, ordered-logit, and multinomial specifications suggest that the non-text relationship is primarily an adoption/non-adoption pattern rather than evidence of intensive use: the demographic-adjusted odds ratio of ever having used a non-text AI tool is 0.68. Thus, in the study that measures self-reported past usage rather than stated preferences, the evidence does not support a simple claim that lower AI literacy predicts greater receptivity to AI in general. It points instead to a narrower pattern of broader adoption across lower-penetration, non-text AI tools.