Rethinking Generative AI Literacy: An Integrative, Developmental, and Dialectical Framework for K-12 Teacher Education
Authors: Shahin Hossain, Sima Ahmadi, Leqi Li, Idowu David Awoyemi, Wei Huang, Chenxi Zhou, Jujia Li, Samaa Haniya, +2 more
Organizations: School of Education, University of Maryland Baltimore County, Baltimore, Maryland, USA · School of Teaching, Learning, and Curriculum Studies: Educational Technology Department, Kent State University, Ohio, USA · Department of Learning and Performance Systems, Pennsylvania State University, State College, PA, USA · Department of Educational Leadership, Policy, and Technology Studies, The University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL, USA · College of Education, University of Alabama, Alabama, USA · Graduate School of Education and Human Development, Department of Curriculum and Instruction, George Washington University, District of Columbia, USA · Graduate School of Education and Psychology, Pepperdine University, Los Angeles, CA, United States · Department of Artificial Intelligence, Faculty of Computer Science and Information Technology, Universiti Malaya, Kuala Lumpur 50603, Malaysia · Department of English Language and Literature, Begum Rokeya University, Rangpur, Bangladesh
Abstract
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.
Generative AI has rapidly entered education through free consumer tools, outpacing the ability of schools and universities to respond. Now a new wave of more autonomous agentic AI systems--with the capacity to plan and act towards goals--promises both greater educational personalization and greater disruption. This chapter argues that successfully navigating these innovations requires balancing three core tensions: (1) Implementation Feasibility, or the practical capacity to integrate AI sustainably into real classrooms; (2) Adaptation Speed, or the mismatch between fast-evolving AI capabilities and the slower pace of educational change; and (3) Mission Alignment, or the need to ensure AI applications uphold educational values such as equity, privacy, and pedagogical integrity. First, we review early evidence of generative and agentic AI in various sectors and in frontline education to illustrate these tensions in context. Then, we present a three-tension framework to guide decision-makers in evaluating and designing AI initiatives across K-12 and higher education. We provide examples of how the framework can be applied to plan responsible AI deployments, and we identify emerging trends--such as curriculum-linked AI agents and educator-informed AI design--along with open research directions. We conclude the chapter with recommendations for educational leaders to proactively engage with the opportunities and challenges of AI, so that this technology can be harnessed to enhance teaching and learning in the decade ahead.
Large language models generate code from natural language prompts, enabling "vibe coding," which allows non-programmers to develop computational solutions. Vibe coding for teachers amplifies the value of teachers-as-designers, improving technology integration while fostering AI literacy. However, structured guidance on supporting this process is lacking. We propose GAIDE (A Guiding Framework for AI-Integrated Design for Educators), a framework that supports K-12 teachers in creating AI-powered learning technologies through vibe coding. The initial framework, built on Design Thinking and INTERACT, was validated through a CORDTRA interaction analysis of three teachers and four faculty mentors in an eight-week workshop to derive the final framework. Additionally, the qualitative analysis of pre- and post-interviews found an enhancement of teachers' AI literacy. Findings highlight the potential of learning-by-creating for professional development.
Education is not merely the transmission of information or the optimisation of individual performance; it is a fundamentally social, constructive, and relational practice. However, recent advances in generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) increasingly emphasise efficiency, automation, and individualised assistance, risking the weakening of relational learning processes. Despite growing adoption, AI in education (AIED) research has yet to fully articulate how AI can be designed in ways that sustain the social and ecological relationships through which learning occurs. In this paper, we re-centre education as relational and frame learner-AI interactions as context-specific relationships with clearly defined purposes and boundaries, rather than positioning them as substitutes for, or replacements of, human interaction. Grounded in participatory design practices and inspired by Indigenous worldviews (including Aboriginal Australian, Native American, and Mesoamerican traditions) that foreground reciprocity and relational accountability, we argue that meaningful educational AI should support learning with others rather than replace them. We advance this perspective by: i) conceptualising AIED as a relational design problem grounded in reciprocity; ii) articulating key tensions introduced by GenAI in education; and iii) outlining design directions that expand the AIED design space toward reciprocity, including when not to use AI, how to define pedagogical boundaries, and how to support responsible uses of AIED innovations that sustain communities and natural environments.