AI Literacy

Enabling AI literacy in the general population at scale is a complex challenge requiring multiple stakeholders and institutions collaborating together. Industry and technology companies are important actors with respect to AI, and as a field, we have the opportunity to consider how researchers and companies might be partners toward shared goals. In this symposium, we focus on a collection of partnership projects that all involve Google and all address AI literacy as a comparative set of examples. Through a combination of presentations, commentary, and moderated group discussion, the session, we will identify (1) at what points in the life cycle do research, practice, and industry partnerships clearly intersect; (2) what factors and histories shape the directional focus of the partnerships; and (3) where there may be future opportunities for new configurations of partnership that are jointly beneficial to all parties.

As large language models (LLMs) become increasingly persuasive, there is concern that people's opinions and decisions may be influenced across various contexts at scale. Prior mitigation (e.g., AI detectors and disclaimers) largely treats people as passive recipients of AI-generated information. To provide a more proactive intervention against persuasive AI, we introduce $\textbf{LLMimic}$, a role-play-based, interactive, gamified AI literacy tutorial, where participants assume the role of an LLM and progress through three key stages of the training pipeline (pretraining, SFT, and RLHF). We conducted a $2 \times 3$ between-subjects study ($N = 274$) where participants either (1) watched an AI history video (control) or (2) interacted with LLMimic (treatment), and then engaged in one of three realistic AI persuasion scenarios: (a) charity donation persuasion, (b) malicious money solicitation, or (c) hotel recommendation. Our results show that LLMimic significantly improved participants' AI literacy ($p < .001$), reduced persuasion success across scenarios ($p < .05$), and enhanced truthfulness and social responsibility levels ($p<0.01$) in the hotel scenario. These findings suggest that LLMimic offers a scalable, human-centered approach to improving AI literacy and supporting more informed interactions with persuasive AI.

As generative AI systems are integrated into educational settings, students often encounter AI-generated output while working through learning tasks, either by requesting help or through integrated tools. Trust in AI can influence how students interpret and use that output, including whether they evaluate it critically or exhibit overreliance. We investigate how students' trust relates to their appropriate reliance on an AI assistant during programming problem-solving tasks, and whether this relationship differs by learner characteristics. With 432 undergraduate participants, students' completed Python output-prediction problems while receiving recommendations and explanations from an AI chatbot, including accurate and intentionally misleading suggestions. We operationalize reliance behaviorally as the extent to which students' responses reflected appropriate use of the AI assistant's suggestions, accepting them when they were correct and rejecting them when they were incorrect. Pre- and post-task surveys assessed trust in the assistant, AI literacy, need for cognition, programming self-efficacy, and programming literacy. Results showed a non-linear relationship in which higher trust was associated with lower appropriate reliance, suggesting weaker discrimination between correct and incorrect recommendations. This relationship was significantly moderated by students' AI literacy and need for cognition. These findings highlight the need for future work on instructional and system supports that encourage more reflective evaluation of AI assistance during problem-solving.

As AI becomes increasingly embedded across societal domains, understanding how future AI practitioners, particularly technology students, perceive its risks is essential for responsible development and adoption. This study analyzed responses from 139 students in Computer Science, Data Science/Data Analytics, and other disciplines using both explicit AI risk ratings and scenario-based assessments of risk and adoption willingness. Four key findings emerged: (1) Students expressed substantially higher concern for concrete, explicitly stated risks than for abstract or scenario-embedded risks; (2) Perceived risk and willingness to adopt AI demonstrated a clear inverse relationship; (3) Although technical education narrowed gender differences in risk awareness, male students reported higher adoption willingness; and (4) A form of "risk underappreciation" was observed, wherein students in AI-related specializations showed both elevated explicit risk awareness and higher willingness to adopt AI, despite lower recognition of risks in applied scenarios. These findings underscore the need for differentiated AI literacy strategies that bridge the gap between awareness and responsible adoption and offer valuable insights for educators, policymakers, industry leaders, and academic institutions aiming to cultivate ethically informed and socially responsible AI practitioners.

The rapid proliferation of Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) is reshaping pedagogical practices and assessment models in higher education. While institutional and educator perspectives on GenAI integration are increasingly documented, the student perspective remains comparatively underexplored. This study examines how students perceive, use, and evaluate GenAI within their academic practices, focusing on usage patterns, perceived benefits, and expectations for institutional support. Data were collected through a questionnaire administered to 436 postgraduate Computer Science students at the University of Hertfordshire and analysed using descriptive methods. The findings reveal a Confidence-Competence Paradox: although more than 60% of students report high familiarity with tools such as ChatGPT, daily academic use remains limited and confidence in effective application is only moderate. Students primarily employ GenAI for cognitive scaffolding tasks, including concept clarification and brainstorming, rather than fully automated content generation. At the same time, respondents express concerns regarding data privacy, reliability of AI-generated information, and the potential erosion of critical thinking skills. The results also indicate strong student support for integrating AI literacy into curricula and programme Knowledge, Skills, and Behaviours (KSBs). Overall, the study suggests that universities should move beyond a policing approach to GenAI and adopt a pedagogical framework that emphasises AI literacy, ethical guidance, and equitable access to AI tools.

Two of the most socially consequential issues facing today's children are the rise of artificial intelligence (AI) and the rapid changes to the earth's climate. Both issues are complex and contested, and they are linked through the notable environmental costs of AI use. Using a systems thinking framework, we developed an interactive system called Ecoprompt to help children reason about the environmental impact of AI. EcoPrompt combines a prompt-level environmental footprint calculator with a simulation game that challenges players to reason about the impact of AI use on natural resources that the player manages. We evaluated the system through two participatory design sessions with 16 children ages 6-12. Our findings surfaced children's perspectives on societal and environmental tradeoffs of AI use, as well as their sense of agency and responsibility. Taken together, these findings suggest opportunities for broadening AI literacy to include systems-level reasoning about AI's environmental impact.

As generative AI tools like ChatGPT enter classrooms, workplaces and everyday thinking, writing is at risk of becoming a formality -- outsourced, automated and stripped of its cognitive value. But writing is not just output; it is how we learn to think. This paper explores what is lost when we let machines write for us, drawing on cognitive psychology, educational theory and real classroom practices. We argue that the process of writing -- messy, slow, often frustrating -- is where a human deep learning happens. The paper also explores the current possibilities of AI-text detection, how educators can adapt through smarter pedagogy rather than bans, and why the ability to recognize machine-generated language may become a critical literacy of the 21st century. In a world where writing can be faked, learning can not.

Most AI literacy courses for non-technical undergraduates emphasize conceptual breadth over technical depth. This paper describes UNIV 182, a prerequisite-free course at George Mason University that teaches undergraduates across majors to understand, use, evaluate, and build AI systems. The course is organized around five mechanisms: (1) a unifying conceptual pipeline (problem definition, data, model selection, evaluation, reflection) traversed repeatedly at increasing sophistication; (2) concurrent integration of ethical reasoning with the technical progression; (3) AI Studios, structured in-class work sessions with documentation protocols and real-time critique; (4) a cumulative assessment portfolio in which each assignment builds competencies required by the next, culminating in a co-authored field experiment on chatbot reasoning and a final project in which teams build AI-enabled artifacts and defend them before external evaluators; and (5) a custom AI agent providing structured reinforcement outside class. The paper situates this design within a comparative taxonomy of cross-major AI literacy courses and pedagogical traditions. Instructor-coded analysis of student artifacts at four assessment stages documents a progression from descriptive, intuition-based reasoning to technically grounded design with integrated safeguards, reaching the Create level of Bloom's revised taxonomy. To support adoption, the paper identifies which mechanisms are separable, which require institutional infrastructure, and how the design adapts to settings ranging from general AI literacy to discipline-embedded offerings. The course is offered as a documented resource, demonstrating that technical depth and broad accessibility can coexist when scaffolding supports both.

The exponential growth of AI education has brought millions of learners to online platforms, yet this massive scale has simultaneously exposed critical pedagogical shortcomings. Traditional video-based instruction, while cost-effective and scalable, demonstrates systematic failures in both sustaining learner engagement and facilitating the deep conceptual mastery essential for AI literacy. We present a pilot study evaluating a novel hybrid learning platform that integrates real-time conversational AI tutors with traditional video lectures. Our controlled experiment (N = 58, mean age M = 21.4, SD = 2.8) compared traditional video-based instruction with our AI-augmented video platform. This study employed a sequential within-subjects design where all participants first completed the traditional video condition followed by the AI-augmented condition, providing direct comparisons of learning outcomes. We measured learning effectiveness through immediate post-tests and delayed retention assessments (2-week delay). Results suggest improvements in learning performance: immediate post-test performance showed a large effect size (d = 1.505) with participants scoring 8.3 points higher after AI-augmented instruction (91.8 vs 83.5 out of 100, p < .001). Behavioral analytics revealed increased engagement duration (71.1% improvement with AI tutoring) in the experimental group. This pilot study provides preliminary evidence that conversational AI tutors may enhance traditional educational delivery, suggesting a potential avenue for developing scalable, adaptive learning systems.

This paper introduces the "Trilingual Triad" framework, a model that explains how students learn to design with generative artificial intelligence (AI) through the integration of Design, AI, and Domain Knowledge. As generative AI rapidly enters higher education, students often engage with these systems as passive users of generated outputs rather than active creators of AI-enabled knowledge tools. This study investigates how students can transition from using AI as a tool to designing AI as a collaborative teammate. The research examines a graduate course, Creating the Frontier of No-code Smart Cities at the Singapore University of Technology and Design (SUTD), in which students developed domain-specific custom GPT systems without coding. Using a qualitative multi-case study approach, three projects - the Interview Companion GPT, the Urban Observer GPT, and Buddy Buddy - were analyzed across three dimensions: design, AI architecture, and domain expertise. The findings show that effective human-AI collaboration emerges when these three "languages" are orchestrated together: domain knowledge structures the AI's logic, design mediates human-AI interaction, and AI extends learners' cognitive capacity. The Trilingual Triad framework highlights how building AI systems can serve as a constructionist learning process that strengthens AI literacy, metacognition, and learner agency.

Artificial intelligence (AI) is now ubiquitous in our lives, and we regularly experience its decisions. Yet, the general public has very little knowledge about how it works, its use of data, its lack of objectivity, and its fallibility. In line with UNESCO recommendations, we believe that a basic understanding of AI algorithms is essential to enable everyone to make informed choices about using them and entrusting them with personal data. To this end, we propose a debate game simulating a municipal council gathered to choose between three AI solutions proposed by a company to address a societal problem. This interactive tool is available for free download online. The results of the initial sessions demonstrate its value, not only for raising awareness about AI but also for developing argumentation and listening skills in students.

Despite universal GenAI adoption, students cannot distinguish task performance from actual learning and lack skills to leverage AI for learning, leading to worse exam performance when AI use remains unreflective. Yet few interventions teaching students to prompt AI as a tutor rather than solution provider have been validated at scale through randomized controlled trials (RCTs). To bridge this gap, we conducted a semester-long RCT (N=979) with four ICAP framework-based instructional conditions varying in engagement intensity with a pre-test, immediate and delayed post-test and surveys. Mixed methods analysis results showed: (1) All conditions significantly improved prompting skills, with gains increasing progressively from Condition 1 to Condition 4, validating ICAP's cognitive engagement hierarchy; (2) for students with similar pre-test scores, higher learning gain in immediate post-test predict higher final exam score, though no direct between-group differences emerged; (3) Our interventions are suitable and scalable solutions for diverse educational contexts, resources and learners. Together, this study makes empirical and theoretical contributions: (1) theoretically, we provided one of the first large-scale RCTs examining how cognitive engagement shapes learning in prompting literacy and clarifying the relationship between learning-oriented prompting skills and broader academic performance; (2) empirically, we offered timely design guidance for transforming GenAI classroom policies into scalable, actionable prompting literacy instruction to advance learning in the era of Generative AI.

Recent empirical research by Sharma et al. (2026) demonstrated that AI assistant interactions carry meaningful potential for situational human disempowerment, including reality distortion, value judgment distortion, and action distortion. While this work provides a critical diagnosis of the problem, concrete pedagogical interventions remain underexplored. I present an AI literacy framework built around eight cross-cutting Learning Outcomes (LOs), developed independently through teaching practice and subsequently found to align with Sharma et al.'s disempowerment taxonomy. I report a case study from a publicly available online course, where a co-teaching methodology--with AI serving as an active voice co-instructor--was used to deliver this framework. Drawing on inoculation theory (McGuire, 1961)--a well-established persuasion research framework recently applied to misinformation prebunking by the Cambridge school (van der Linden, 2022; Roozenbeek & van der Linden, 2019)--I argue that AI literacy cannot be acquired through declarative knowledge alone, but requires guided exposure to AI failure modes, including the sycophantic validation and authority projection patterns identified by Sharma et al. This application of inoculation theory to AI-specific distortion is, to my knowledge, novel. I discuss the convergence between the pedagogically-derived framework and Sharma et al.'s empirically-derived taxonomy, and argue that this convergence--two independent approaches arriving at similar problem descriptions--strengthens the case for both the diagnosis and the proposed educational response.