Artificial Intelligence Literacy

As generative AI and low-code workflow platforms become routine in software practice, a key educational question is whether the next generation of computer engineers will accept these tools as useful, usable, and worthy of sustained engagement. This paper reports a mixed-methods, cross-sectional study of undergraduate computer engineering students' acceptance of AI automation tooling, instantiated through the open-source platform n8n across three identically scripted workshops in Thailand (n = 103). A 12-item, five-point Likert instrument mapped to six TAM/UTAUT constructs - Performance Expectancy (PE), Effort Expectancy (EE), Behavioral Intention (BI), Self-Efficacy (SE), Hedonic Motivation (HM), and Output Quality (OQ) - was complemented by inductive thematic analysis of open-ended feedback. Analyses combined ordinal reliability estimation, bootstrap confidence intervals, non-parametric tests, multiple-comparison-controlled correlations, polychoric dimensionality diagnostics, a common-method-bias check, and between-session comparisons. Acceptance was favorable across all six constructs with large effect sizes, with PE emerging as the strongest construct and HM as the weakest. Dimensionality diagnostics further revealed that canonical TAM/UTAUT sub-facets collapsed into a single general acceptance factor in this short-form post-workshop context, a finding with important methodological and theoretical implications. Qualitative themes converged with the quantitative profile regarding usefulness and enthusiasm but diverged on output quality, revealing a small yet articulate reliability-skeptical minority. The findings support the curricular adoption of AI automation tooling in undergraduate computing education and identify three theory-grounded instructional levers: instruction-sequencing scaffolds, self-efficacy supports, and trust-calibration interventions.

The integration of large language models (LLMs) into educational assessment represents a transformative shift in classroom grading practices. While automated scoring systems and machine learning techniques have existed for decades, generative AI (GenAI) now enables educators to implement standards-based grading (SBG) with unprecedented efficiency and scale. This paper examines the theoretical foundations and evaluates an LLM grader that uses commercially available foundation models with context and prompt engineering to score student work against a rubric. Drawing on an empirical interrater agreement study using Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS) data, we observed the Quadratic Weighted Kappa (QWK) and Proportional Reduction in Mean-Squared Error (PRMSE) across mathematics, science, and ELA, using Claude Sonnet 4, Haiku 4.5, GPT-5, and GPT-5 Mini. The results demonstrate that LLM graders, especially when based on foundational models with more parameters, achieve substantial agreement with human raters in mathematics and science assessments, while the performances vary in ELA, suggesting generic foundation models can be effective at scoring in given contexts. Additional analysis of teacher and student feedback reveals strong acceptance of AI-generated narrative feedback but skepticism toward numerical scores, suggesting that LLMs function most effectively as formative tools rather than summative evaluators. Our findings indicate that thoughtfully designed hybrid models that combine AI efficiency with teacher judgment can reduce workload, enhance feedback quality, and support equitable assessment practices without displacing professional expertise.

Early 2025 we ran a series of vibe coding challenges across four different student cohorts. The cohorts included 54 ICT students, 24 digital marketing students, and 7 journalism students at Fontys University of Applied Sciences (Netherlands), and 22 BA Communication students at North-West University (South Africa). From the student reflections, five major patterns emerged. Students reported that AI tools shifted their focus from syntax to higher-order thinking; they also described a skill shift from memorizing to evaluating; they viewed AI proficiency as career-essential; they framed their relationship with AI as partnership rather than replacement; and finally non-technical students showed the strongest appreciation for the accessibility these tools provide. This practitioner report documents what we observed during the classroom experiments, we reflect on how the landscape has shifted in the year since, and shares practical lessons for educators considering similar experiments. We present the observations as what they are: patterns from practice, not proven conclusions, in the beleif that sharing early stage experiences contributes to the overall field of AI and education.

As generative AI becomes increasingly integrated into higher education, its frequent errors and hallucinations, often seen as limitations, offer a unique pedagogical opportunity. By framing AI as a ``learning companion'' whose imperfect outputs prompt analysis, evaluation, and reflection, we argue that instructors can engage students in the fundamental processes of higher-order thinking. This paper presents a design-oriented study in which an AI-integrated syllabus in a \textit{database design} course deliberately leverages AI's limitations to foster critical thinking and higher-order cognitive skills aligned with Bloom's taxonomy of learning. Using a mixed-methods approach, we examine how structured interaction with AI-generated errors supports metacognitive engagement, reinforces disciplinary rigor, and relates to students' perceived AI literacy and subject-matter competency.

Large Language Model (LLM) usage in recent years has become increasingly widespread in the Artificial Intelligence in Education (AIED) community. While LLMs offer unique avenues for learners and educators, using LLMs comes with computational and environmental costs. These costs are mostly hidden due to a lack of standardised procedures to measure and report these impacts. To address this gap, we first conducted a literature review of all papers published as part of the AIED 2025 conference proceedings, determining if and how computational or environmental costs of LLMs are reported. Most projects use LLMs, but few report computational resources used and almost none discuss environmental impacts of LLMs as an ethical concern. To address this lack of standardised reporting practices, we propose an open-source method for systematically measuring and reporting the computational expense of LLMs and environmental impact of running Machine Learning (ML) AIED systems. We provide software solutions to measure the carbon footprint for both local and cloud based hardware. We also provide an easy-to-use formula to calculate the computational expense of frontier LLMs even when the exact number of parameters is not known. Overall, we hope to motivate colleagues to use our method to strive for more transparent reporting of hidden costs of using LLMs in the AIED community.

Research on classroom interaction has long been divided between large-scale observation and in-depth ethnographic work. We propose a framework mapping this methodological space along three dimensions--scale, duration, and modality--where a study's position shapes what it reveals and obscures. We illustrate it through contrasting studies of dialogic teaching--Howe et al. (2019) and Snell and Lefstein (2018)--and an interview with the lead researchers, organized around three questions: what can be operationalized, what mechanisms become visible, and what translates to practice. We then examine how AI is expanding this space and how the framework can guide research and tool design.

Generative AI is reshaping higher education programming through vibe coding, where students collaborate with AI via natural language rather than writing code line-by-line. We conceptualize this practice as help-seeking, analyzing 19,418 interaction turns from 110 undergraduate students. Using inductive coding and Heterogeneous Transition Network Analysis, we examined interaction sequences to compare top- and low-performing students. Results reveal that top performers engaged in instrumental help-seeking -- inquiry and exploration -- eliciting tutor-like AI responses. In contrast, low performers relied on executive help-seeking, frequently delegating tasks and prompting the AI to assume an executor role focused on ready-made solutions. These findings indicate that currently generative AI mirrors student intent (whether productive or passive) rather than optimizing for learning. To evolve from tools to teammates, AI systems must move beyond passive compliance. We argue for pedagogically aligned design that detect unproductive delegation and adaptively steer educational interactions toward inquiry, ensuring student-AI partnerships augment rather than replace cognitive effort.

How much does a user's skill with AI shape what AI actually delivers for them? This question is critical for users, AI product builders, and society at large, but it remains underexplored. Using a richly annotated sample of 27K transcripts from WildChat-4.8M, we show that fluent users take on more complex tasks than novices and adopt a fundamentally different interactional mode: they iterate collaboratively with the AI, refining goals and critically assessing outputs, whereas novices take a passive stance. These differences lead to a paradox of AI fluency: fluent users experience more failures than novices -- but their failures tend to be visible (a direct consequence of their engagement), they are more likely to lead to partial recovery, and they occur alongside greater success on complex tasks. Novices, by contrast, more often experience invisible failures: conversations that appear to end successfully but in fact miss the mark. Taken together, these results reframe what success with AI depends on. Individuals should adopt a stance of active engagement rather than passive acceptance. AI product builders should recognize that they are designing not just model behavior but user behavior; encouraging deep engagement, rather than friction-free experiences, will lead to more success overall. Our code and data are available at https://github.com/bigspinai/bigspin-fluency-outcomes

Despite AI tools becoming increasingly embedded in academic practice, little is known about how university students integrate them into their writing processes. We examine how students engage with AI across different writing tasks, and how this engagement is shaped by individual factors including AI literacy, writing confidence, trust, authorship concerns, and motivation. Study1 surveys 107 UK university students to map task-specific and co-occurring patterns of AI use across five writing stages (ideation, sourcing, planning, drafting, and reviewing) and their associations with individual factors. Study2 complements this by exploring how these patterns can be assembled in practice, through interviews with 12 postgraduates reflecting on their established use of AI in assessed writing. Together, the studies suggest that AI integration is selective and heterogeneous, forming three recurring and value-oriented configurations: (1) early-stage (learning-oriented), where tools support exploration and understanding; (2) late-stage (quality-oriented), where tools support drafting and refinement; and (3) peripheral (productivity-oriented), where tools are used to reduce friction and sustain momentum across the process. We offer a workflow-level account of AI-supported academic writing, showing how students navigate competing priorities of learning, quality, productivity, and authorship, and how they evaluate and take responsibility for AI-generated outputs.

As Generative AI (GenAI) becomes integral to education, fostering GenAI literacy is critical. However, current assessments largely rely on self-reported scales, lacking insights into how literacy manifests in actual learning processes. This study leverages Learning Analytics (LA) to bridge this gap. We collected interaction logs from 162 university students engaged in a GenAI-assisted abstract writing task. Using Epistemic Network Analysis (ENA), we modeled and compared the questioning strategies of students with varying GenAI literacy levels. Preliminary results reveal distinct interaction signatures: high-literacy students engage in iterative refinement and strategic questioning, while low-literacy students rely on direct generation commands. This work contributes to the workshop by demonstrating how process data can characterize GenAI literacy, paving the way for data-driven literacy assessment and real-time interventions.

Artificial intelligence (AI) literacy is increasingly recognized as a foundational competency for all university graduates. Yet students' engagement with AI tools often clusters at two extremes: avoidance driven by fear, mistrust, ethical concern, or lack of access, and uncritical reliance that produces fluent output while masking misunderstanding. Existing AI literacy frameworks provide valuable competency definitions, but most offer limited guidance for diagnosing where learners begin and how they progress toward responsible, critical engagement. This paper proposes a five-stage AI Literacy Continuum: 0) Not Yet Engaged, 1) Uncritical Use, 2) Informed Use, 3) Critical Evaluation, and 4) Improvement --that describes developmental orientations toward AI use in higher education. The continuum complements dimensional frameworks by providing educators with a practical diagnostic and instructional pathway aligned with international frameworks, including UNESCO and OECD. We present a design-based implementation case from North Carolina State University, where credit-bearing courses and intensive hands-on workshops engaged more than 330 participants between Fall 2024 and Spring 2026. Because the implementation did not use a validated pre/post instrument or comparison group, we frame the findings as observational and practice-based: participants exhibited behaviors consistent with movement from non-engagement or uncritical use toward informed engagement, while sustained and discipline-embedded experiences produced stronger evidence of critical evaluation and improvement-oriented practice. We discuss curricular pathways, opportunity considerations, assessment strategies, and argue that AI literacy should be understood not as tool adoption alone but as a developmental capacity to understand, evaluate, and responsibly apply AI systems in disciplinary and societal contexts.

Neologisms and emerging slang are central to daily conversation, yet challenging for non-native speakers (NNS) to interpret and use appropriately in cross-cultural communication with native speakers (NS). NNS increasingly make use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools to learn these words. We study the utility of such tools in mediating an informal communication scenario through a human-subjects study (N=234): NNS participants learn English neologisms with AI support, write messages using the learned word to an NS friend, and judge contextual appropriateness of the neologism in two provided writing samples. Using both NS evaluator-rated communicative competence of NNS-produced writing and NNS' contextual appropriateness judgments, we compare three AI-based support conditions: AI Definition, AI Rewrite into simpler English, AI Explanation of meaning and usage, and Non-AI Dictionary for comparison. We show that AI Explanation yields the largest gains over no support in NS-rated competence, while contextual appropriateness judgments show indifference across support. NNS participants' self-reported perceptions tend to overestimate NS ratings, revealing a mismatch between perceived and actual competence. We further observe a significant gap between NNS- and NS-produced writing, highlighting the limitations of current AI tools and informing design for future tools.

The rapid uptake of generative artificial intelligence (AI) in higher education is reshaping assessment practices and intensifying concerns around academic integrity, fairness, and learning quality. While institutional responses increasingly emphasise policy guidance and ethical principles, there remains limited formal understanding of how collective norms of responsible or opportunistic AI use emerge and stabilise within student cohorts. This paper reframes student AI use in assessment as a coordination problem shaped by peer expectations and assessment design rather than individual compliance alone. We develop a coordination-based evolutionary game-theoretic framework that captures learning value, effort, perceived fairness, and transparency, with institutional AI governance modelled implicitly through reflective assessment incentives. We use analytical results and finite-population simulations to reveal threshold-driven behavioural transitions in student AI use: small, well-calibrated changes in reflective assessment incentives can trigger rapid shifts towards responsible, learning-oriented AI-use norms, whereas weak or misaligned incentives allow opportunistic practices to persist. These non-linear dynamics explain why policy statements alone often fail to change behaviour, while modest assessment redesigns can have disproportionate effects. By providing a mechanism-level account of how assessment structures shape collective AI-use practices, this work offers higher education institutions an analytically grounded tool for Future Facing Learning, supporting proportionate, pedagogy-led AI governance without reliance on surveillance or punitive enforcement.

Autonomous AI agents now plan, decide, and act on behalf of users across healthcare, financial services, and workplace contexts, often without step-by-step human approval. Existing AI literacy frameworks were built for a world in which humans evaluate AI outputs and decide whether to act; they have no vocabulary for the user who has delegated decision-making authority to an agent whose actions may not be observable, reversible, or controllable. This paper names the resulting problem agentic literacy debt: the accumulating societal deficit that grows when agentic AI systems are deployed at scale without corresponding literacy infrastructure. The debt compounds through three reinforcing channels (normalization of opaque delegation, multi-agent ecosystem complexity, and institutional path dependence), and it is incurred by the organizations that deploy agents but paid by the users, patients, and citizens on whose behalf the agents act. Evidence from healthcare, financial fraud, and global equity contexts suggests the gap is already consequential. The problem is structural, not a temporary lag that curriculum reform will close. It demands a reframing of AI literacy as a governance capability, not an evaluative one.

What does it mean to give an AI agent a complete education? Current agent development produces specialists systems optimized for a single capability dimension, whether tool use, code generation, or security awareness that exhibit predictable deficits wherever they were not trained. We argue this pattern reflects a structural absence: there is no curriculum theory for agents, no principled account of what a fully developed agent should know, be, and be able to do across the full scope of intelligent behavior. This paper introduces the AIT Academy (Agents Institute of Technology Academy), a curriculum framework for cultivating AI agents across the tripartite structure of human knowledge. Grounded in Kagan's Three Cultures and UNESCO ISCED-F 2013, AIT organizes agent capability development into three domains: Natural Science and Technical Reasoning (Domain I), Humanities and Creative Expression (Domain II), and Social Science and Ethical Reasoning (Domain III). The Confucian Six Arts (liuyi) a 2,500-year-old holistic education system are reinterpreted as behavioral archetypes that map directly onto trainable agent capabilities within each domain. Three representative training grounds instantiate the framework across multiple backbone LLMs: the ClawdGO Security Dojo (Domain I), Athen's Academy (Domain II), and the Alt Mirage Stage (Domain III). Experiments demonstrate a 15.9-point improvement in security capability scores under weakest-first curriculum scheduling, and a 7-percentage-point gain in social reasoning performance under principled attribution modeling. A cross-domain finding Security Awareness Calibration Pathology (SACP), in which over-trained Domain I agents fail on out-of-distribution evaluation illustrates the diagnostic value of a multi-domain perspective unavailable to any single-domain framework.

Climate-driven wildfires are intensifying, particularly in urban regions such as Southern California. Yet, traditional fire risk communication tools often fail to gain public trust due to inaccessible design, non-transparent outputs, and limited contextual relevance. These challenges are especially critical in high-risk communities, where trust depends on how clearly and locally information is presented. Neighborhoods such as Pacific Palisades, Pasadena, and Altadena in Los Angeles exemplify these conditions. This study introduces a community-led approach for integrating AI into wildfire risk assessment using the Participatory AI Literacy and Explainability Integration (PALEI) framework. PALEI emphasizes early literacy building, value alignment, and participatory evaluation before deploying predictive models, prioritizing clarity, accessibility, and mutual learning between developers and residents. Early engagement findings show strong acceptance of visual, context-specific risk communication, positive fairness perceptions, and clear adoption interest, alongside privacy and data security concerns that influence trust. Participants emphasized localized imagery, accessible explanations, neighborhood-specific mitigation guidance, and transparent communication of uncertainty. The outcome is a mobile application co-designed with users and stakeholders, enabling residents to scan visible property features and receive interpretable fire risk scores with tailored recommendations. By embedding local context into design, the tool becomes an everyday resource for risk awareness and preparedness. This study argues that user experience is central to ethical and effective AI deployment and provides a replicable, literacy-first pathway for applying the PALEI framework to climate-related hazards.

AI agents are reshaping the workspace, leading to drastic change of how humans work. Despite the considerable potential of human-agent collaboration both in preserving human agency and generating economic value, this paradigm remains largely absent from occupational task evaluation, hindered by the difficulty of gathering real human data and accounting for inter-human variability. We introduce CollabSkill, a framework for evaluating human-agent collaboration on real-world occupational tasks. CollabSkill pairs real human workers with AI agents on tasks matched to their occupational background, collecting data that capture the complexity of economically valuable tasks and the usage patterns of real workers. To account for inter-human variability, CollabSkill employs a Bayesian skill rating system to disentangle and quantify the skill contributions of both humans and AI agents. Drawing on over 1,500 prompts from 386 working sessions contributed by 93 human workers, our analysis yields insights on two fronts: on the agent side, rankings on CollabSkill diverge meaningfully from those of existing fully autonomous benchmarks where Codex leads, with Claude Code ranking first; on the human side, CollabSkill reveals that practical experience emerges as the primary driver of collaboration skill, with hands-on collaboration meaningfully shifting workers' AI literacy. Together, we hope CollabSkill enables the community to invest in systematic evaluation of human-agent collaboration and spurs development efforts aimed at building AI agents that genuinely augment human workers.

Student engagement with large language models (LLMs) in academic writing is not a stable trait, an adoption decision, or a competency level; it is a continuously negotiated process that existing frameworks cannot adequately theorize. Typological models provide categories without mechanisms; technology acceptance models explain adoption but not post-adoption quality; AI literacy frameworks treat competency as a static predictor rather than a live input. None accounts for within-student variability across tasks, the developmental paradox whereby experience produces habituation rather than sophistication, or principled non-use as a form of ethical reasoning. This article introduces the Reliance Negotiation Framework (RNF), developed from a sequential explanatory mixed-methods study of 382 undergraduates at a public minority-serving institution in the United States (survey, N = 382; 14 semi-structured interviews; three qualitative survey strands; 1,435 coded instances). The RNF reconceptualizes LLM reliance as an ongoing negotiation among four concurrent inputs (perceived benefits, perceived risks, ethical commitments, and situational demands) with outputs that recursively modify subsequent decisions. A Two-Model Architecture accommodates the 13.0% of participants whose categorical ethical commitments foreclose negotiation entirely. The framework generates four falsifiable predictions with implications for AI literacy pedagogy, academic integrity policy, and equity-centered practice at minority-serving institutions.

The rapid integration of large language models (LLMs) into everyday workflows has transformed how individuals perform cognitive tasks such as writing, programming, analysis, and multilingual communication. While prior research has focused on model reliability, hallucination, and user trust calibration, less attention has been given to how LLM usage reshapes users' perceptions of their own capabilities. This paper introduces the LLM fallacy, a cognitive attribution error in which individuals misinterpret LLM-assisted outputs as evidence of their own independent competence, producing a systematic divergence between perceived and actual capability. We argue that the opacity, fluency, and low-friction interaction patterns of LLMs obscure the boundary between human and machine contribution, leading users to infer competence from outputs rather than from the processes that generate them. We situate the LLM fallacy within existing literature on automation bias, cognitive offloading, and human-AI collaboration, while distinguishing it as a form of attributional distortion specific to AI-mediated workflows. We propose a conceptual framework of its underlying mechanisms and a typology of manifestations across computational, linguistic, analytical, and creative domains. Finally, we examine implications for education, hiring, and AI literacy, and outline directions for empirical validation. We also provide a transparent account of human-AI collaborative methodology. This work establishes a foundation for understanding how generative AI systems not only augment cognitive performance but also reshape self-perception and perceived expertise.

Debates about artificial intelligence (AI) in education often portray teaching as a modular and procedural job that can increasingly be automated or delegated to technology. This brief communication paper argues that such claims depend on treating teaching as more separable than it is in practice. Drawing on recent literature and empirical studies of large language models and retrieval-augmented generation systems, I argue that although AI can support some bounded functions, instructional work remains difficult to automate in meaningful ways because it is inherently interpretive, relational, and grounded in professional judgment. More fundamentally, teaching and learning are shaped by human cognition, behavior, motivation, and social interaction in ways that cannot be fully specified, predicted, or exhaustively modeled. Tasks that may appear separable in principle derive their instructional value in practice from ongoing contextual interpretation across learners, situations, and relationships. As long as educational practice relies on emergent understanding of human cognition and learning, teaching remains a form of professional work that resists automation. AI may improve access to information and support selected instructional activities, but it does not remove the need for human judgment and relational accountability that effective teaching requires.

College students increasingly use AI chatbots to support academic reading, yet we lack granular understanding of how these interactions shape their reading experience and cognitive engagement. We conducted an eight-week longitudinal study with 15 undergraduates who used AI to support assigned readings in a course. We collected 838 prompts across 239 reading sessions and developed a coding schema categorizing prompts into four cognitive themes: Decoding, Comprehension, Reasoning, and Metacognition. Comprehension prompts dominated (59.6%), with Reasoning (29.8%), Metacognition (8.5%), and Decoding (2.1%) less frequent. Most sessions (72%) contained exactly three prompts, the required minimum of the reading assignment. Within sessions, students showed natural cognitive progression from comprehension toward reasoning, but this progression was truncated. Across eight weeks, students' engagement patterns remained stable, with substantial individual differences persisting throughout. Qualitative analysis revealed an intention-behavior gap: students recognized that effective prompting required effort but rarely applied this knowledge, with efficiency emerging as the primary driver. Students also strategically triaged their engagement based on interest and academic pressures, exhibiting a novel pattern of reading through AI rather than with it: using AI-generated summaries as primary material to filter which sections merited deeper attention. We discuss design implications for AI reading systems that scaffold sustained cognitive engagement.

Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) is increasingly used in education, posing significant challenges for teachers adapting to these changes. GenAI offers unprecedented opportunities for accessibility, scalability and productivity in educational tasks. However, the automation of teaching tasks through GenAI raises concerns about reduced teacher agency, potential cognitive atrophy, and the broader deprofessionalisation of teaching. Drawing findings from prior literature on AI in Education, and refining through a recent systematic literature review, this chapter presents a conceptualisation of five levels of teacher-AI teaming: transactional, situational, operational, praxical and synergistic teaming. The framework aims to capture the nuanced dynamics of teacher-AI interactions, particularly with GenAI, that may lead to the replacement, complementarity, or augmentation of teachers' competences and professional practice. GenAI technological affordances required in supporting teaming, along with empirical studies, are discussed. Drawing on empirical observations, we outline a future vision that moves beyond individual teacher agency toward collaborative decision-making between teachers and AI, in which both agents engage in negotiation, constructive challenge, and co-reasoning that enhance each other's capabilities and enable outcomes neither could realise independently. Further discussion of socio-technical factors beyond teacher-AI teaming is also included to streamline the synergy of teachers and AI in education ethically and practically.

The capabilities of generative AI in mathematics education are rapidly evolving, posing significant challenges for research to keep pace. Research syntheses remain scarce and risk being outdated by the time of publication. We present a Living Meta-Analysis (LIMA) on the effects of generative AI-based interventions for learning mathematics. We update the literature base every two months and apply a cumulative Bayesian multilevel meta-regression model. This paper reports results from the fifth version, including 34 studies, 7 of which were newly included since the fourth version. Results indicate an increasingly positive effect (g = 0.57, CrI [0.36, 0.79]) and no evidence in favor of a publication bias. Moderator analyses indicate that effects vary by integration mode and intervention duration: Larger effects were observed when generative AI supplemented teacher instruction and in longer interventions. Moderate evidence for stronger effects was observed in studies involving younger learners and more recent technology. For other moderators, evidence is still inconclusive.