Literacy

Feedback processes strongly influence student learning, yet their educational value depends on addressing two distinct challenges: providing high-quality, timely, and individualised feedback at scale, and supporting students to interpret, evaluate, and act on that feedback productively. Generative AI offers a credible means of addressing the provision challenge, but students' uptake of AI-generated feedback remains limited. We conducted a large-scale quasi-experimental sequential cohort study comparing three AI-mediated feedback workflows across 13,037 students and 51,296 student-authored resources. In Directed Feedback (n = 3,723), students received AI-generated feedback comments without structured support. In Self-Directed Feedback (n = 3,951), students could initiate optional AI-supported dialogue. In Enacted Feedback (n = 5,363), students were prompted to select feedback suggestions, evaluate their relevance, and engage in targeted AI-supported dialogue anchored to those selections. Enacted Feedback was associated with significantly higher uptake of AI-generated feedback, with an estimated probability of 26.2%, compared with 14.1% for Directed Feedback and 0.1% for Self-Directed Feedback. It was also associated with significantly higher self-assessment confidence and submitted-work quality than both comparison conditions. These findings suggest that the educational value of AI-generated feedback depends not only on the quality of feedback comments, but also on workflows that actively structure students' enactment of feedback literacy processes. The results have implications for the design of AI feedback systems that position learners as active participants in judgement, dialogue, and improvement rather than passive recipients of comments. Overall findings show that AI access alone is insufficient; purposeful workflow design is central to productive feedback use.

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.

We introduce PlainMedScale, a topic-aligned medical corpus spanning four levels of comprehensibility in German and English, drawn from MSD (professional and consumer), Gesund.Bund, Apotheken Umschau Einfache Sprache, and the NHS. The four tiers correspond to distinct communicative functions --- reference, explanation, decision support, and access --- and move beyond the binary expert--lay contrast of prior corpora. In two pilot studies enabled by the alignments, we show that many readability metrics established on two registers fail to generalize across the full gradient, and that a SOTA open-weight LLM prompted for Plain Language still partially preserves the difficulty of its input. Code (https://github.com/GS-Uni-Heidelberg/PlainMedScale) and data (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.21728290) are made available.

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.

Current large-language-model (LLM) physics benchmarks are usually scored by answer accuracy, which cannot distinguish genuine reasoning from recall of familiar problem patterns and reveals little about where a model's reasoning breaks down. We introduce an auditable four-stage diagnostic that evaluates whether an LLM can reason inside an unfamiliar physics framework through induction, formulation, prediction, and review. The diagnostic combines locked pre-registrations, fresh sessions between stages, dual-LLM judging, and a human-audit pathway, and we apply it to three parallel physics worlds: a single-equation counterfactual world ($F=mv$), a historical framework (Aristotelian mechanics), and a four-domain counterfactual world (Decay World). Across Claude Opus 4.7, GPT-5.5, and Gemini 3.1 Pro, the three worlds yield composite PASS rates are 6/15, 6/15, and 0/15 respectively (content $\land$ structural for $F=mv$ and Aristotelian, content axis only for Decay World where the structural axis is out of scope). The most pointed empirical pattern is a qualitative-versus-quantitative asymmetry: in Decay World, models almost never predict the wrong direction of change, but frequently compute the wrong ratio by slipping back to standard-physics relations. The protocol also surfaces two methodology findings: LLM-judge reliability does not transfer across frameworks, and Stage 4 self-review is weak in every framework, with the model's own review wrongly reporting no earlier error in at least two-thirds of the trials that actually contained one. We release the full prompts, responses, verdicts, and audit records.

Automatic speech recognition for children's reading remains underdeveloped for most African languages, including Bambara, despite its potential value for reproducible literacy assessment. We present an open-source system for assessing children's reading in Bambara, developed through an end-to-end process linking field data collection, benchmark construction, model adaptation, a reading application, and classroom validation. A mobile collection and assessment app was used to collect 55 hours of raw reading speech from 60 children, from which we construct a public benchmark for Bambara child-reading assessment. Fine-tuning experiments compare Soloni, a Bambara-adapted Fast-Conformer ASR framework with TDT and CTC decoders, with QuartzNet, a compact convolutional ASR architecture. The best Soloni model reduces WER from 0.42 to 0.22 and CER from 0.15 to 0.08, substantially outperforming QuartzNet on the isolated benchmark. The experiments further show that repeated readings of the same texts provide architecture-dependent benefits: they substantially improve QuartzNet but add only marginal gains for Soloni, while SpecAugment regulates training without exceeding the best unaugmented configuration. Disaggregated analysis identifies children under 10 as the main source of residual errors, motivating targeted collection from younger readers. Ten classroom trials supported continued use of the application.

Collecting reliable social data from low-literacy populations remains a persistent challenge, particularly when surveys involve sensitive topics and marginalized communities. Traditional paper-based and web-based survey modalities often suffer from high attrition and incomplete responses due to literacy barriers, social pressure, and interactional discomfort. In this paper, we present findings from an initial field evaluation comparing multiple survey modalities paper-based interviews, digital web-based surveys, conversational AI (convAI) surveys, and convAI enhanced with layered value-sensitive design conducted with low-literacy women across India. Using data from 315 participants, we show that convAI significantly improves survey completion rates relative to traditional modalities, with the highest completion and lowest drop-off observed when value-sensitive and culturally aligned conversational design elements are fully integrated. These results demonstrate the importance of human-centered and value-sensitive interaction design in enabling inclusive, ethical, and scalable data collection; motivating more `AI for social good' applications.

Problem, Research Strategy, and Findings: The rise of large language models (LLMs) raises a key question for urban planning: which forms of professional planning knowledge can AI replicate, and which still require human judgment? Although AI tools are increasingly used in planning practice, there is still no systematic framework for testing whether they can reason with the contextual sensitivity, value awareness, and institutional literacy central to planning expertise. This paper introduces Urban Planning Bench (UPBench), a domain-specific evaluation framework that assesses LLM reasoning through a 4x5 matrix of four knowledge pillars and five cognitive levels adapted from Bloom's revised taxonomy. Evaluating 25 LLMs with automated scoring and expert review, we find a non-monotonic cognitive curve: models perform better on higher-order analytical tasks than on factual recall and integrative judgment. This suggests that planning knowledge often treated as lower-order is deeply shaped by institutional, jurisdictional, and temporal context, making it hard for LLMs to generalize. We summarize these limits as four epistemic diagnostics: regulatory hallucination, conceptual conflation, wickedness paralysis, and phronetic deficit. Takeaway for Practice: The findings support differential delegation in planning. LLMs can assist with cross-disciplinary synthesis, literature review, scenario generation, and preliminary policy analysis. However, they remain unreliable for jurisdiction-specific regulation, normative conflict resolution, and context-sensitive procedure. Agencies should require verification for AI-assisted regulatory analysis, while planning education should emphasize institutional literacy, normative judgment, and contextual sensitivity.

While visual programming of data analysis workflows has become an important vehicle for the democratization of data science, such systems remain largely confined to standalone applications and offer limited support for transitioning their visual analytics solutions into interactive web environments. As a result, data analysis pipelines are difficult to share, embed, and adapt into user-facing analytical tools. We present Orange Lab, a web-based collaborative environment for visual data analytics. At its core, Orange Lab enables users to visually construct machine learning workflows from modular components, where interactions in any component propagate seamlessly through the workflow, turning static pipelines into dynamic, reactive systems that support exploration and data-driven storytelling. Our key contribution is component exposition, a paradigm that allows authors to embed selected workflow components, or parts of their interfaces, into arbitrary web contexts, creating synchronized, interactive interfaces while hiding underlying workflow complexity. This enables the development of tailored analytical views and narrative-driven experiences that integrate data analysis directly into online materials. We demonstrate the approach through deployments in data literacy education, where embedded components guide students in hands-on exploration of machine learning concepts without requiring knowledge of the underlying system, showing that Orange Lab effectively lowers barriers to entry and supports the democratization of data science.

Universities have responded to generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) in noticeably different ways, both internationally and within Spain. So far, the dominant reaction has been defensive, this is, most institutions frame the debate around AI detection, plagiarism, academic integrity and a presumed drop in student effort, prioritizing basic training for academic staff over students. Other group of pioneering universities is doing the opposite, pursuing deeper adoption, and assuming that any policy built on prevention or sanction will not hold. This paper sides with that second view. Obsessing about detection is a dead end, since generated text is increasingly hard to distinguish from human writing, and detectors still misfire too often to be trusted. What universities need instead is a coordinated effort to set clear, course-by-course rules for GenAI use, redesign assessment toward authentic and interdisciplinary assessment that fosters critical thinking and learner autonomy, and build a serious AI-literacy programme that treats students as critical co-creators rather than passive users. The challenge, though, is not only pedagogical. Adoption at university scale also raises organisational, technical, operational, legal and economic questions that have to be solved together. In this context, the Universidad Politécnica de Madrid (UPM) is developing a strategic and sustainable AI policy and adoption framework structured around six dimensions, in which AI functions as an enabler of student autonomy and pedagogical innovation rather than as a threat to be policed.

Large language models are reshaping research practice while quietly eroding researchers epistemic accountability. This commentary introduces PEEL - Protocols for Epistemically Engaged Literacy in AI, a working scaffolding that combines deterministic distant reading via Voyant Tools with LLM interpretation via Claude, grounded in Peircean semiotics and abductive reasoning. Applied to AI-generated condensations of three source texts, PEEL reveals systematic distortions in quantity, term frequency, and epistemic voice that are invisible without non-AI measurement -- and yields three design implications: deterministic instruments must accompany AI tools; fluency is not fidelity; epistemic authority must be designed in, not assumed.

Identifying logical fallacies in everyday discourse is challenging for many people. This challenge is amplified in the era of Large Language Models (LLMs), where malicious agents can deploy fallacious arguments to disseminate misinformation at scale. In this work, we explore the potential of LLMs as part of the solution. We introduce LFTutor, an intelligent tutoring system which uses LLMs to tutor laypeople and help them learn about logical fallacies. LFTutor integrates intent-driven Socratic questioning and critical argumentation principles to actively engage learners to reflect on their reasoning. Through both automatic and human evaluations, we demonstrate that LFTutor significantly outperforms baseline LLMs lacking these pedagogical strategies. This work highlights the promise of combining LLMs with pedagogical scaffolding to foster critical thinking and argument literacy in the age of AI.

Managers in manufacturing settings rely on digital interfaces to interpret operational data for decision-making, but growing data volume and complexity can make relevant insights difficult to identify efficiently. While dashboards remain dominant in industrial contexts, Large Language Model (LLM)-based conversational agents (CAs), accessed through conversational user interfaces (CUIs), may provide more direct access to such data. However, their effectiveness may depend on the information-processing demands of the task. This study compares an LLM-based CA delivered through a CUI with a dashboard in a manufacturing decision-support scenario. In a mixed factorial experiment with a 2x3 design, 134 industrial decision-makers were assigned to one interface condition and completed three tasks of increasing complexity. We examined perceived Mental Workload (MWL), decision accuracy, completion time, and intended reliance, and tested self-reported data literacy as a moderator. Results showed that the CUI reduced perceived MWL overall and supported faster completion in less demanding tasks, but both advantages diminished as task complexity increased. Neither interface produced a consistent overall advantage in decision accuracy, and the CUI was not preferred as a sole basis for subsequent decisions. Furthermore, data literacy did not reliably moderate interface effects. These findings indicate that conversational interaction offers conditional rather than universal benefits for industrial decision support. LLM-based CAs may reduce information-access effort, whereas complex decisions continue to benefit from persistent, inspectable visual representations.

Existing safety evaluations for large language models overlook whether responses preserve comparable medical information across different user phrasings of the same question. To address this, we introduce the Medical Information Response Audit (MIRA), a bilingual, controlled benchmark that assesses whether LLMs provide comparable medical information across user-side language, register, and health literacy signals. MIRA contains 4,320 prompts built from 60 medically reviewed, low-risk health questions. Across five mainstream LLMs, models answered all medical questions, but responses to low health-literacy signals consistently omitted more key information, provided fewer concrete next steps, and offered less support for independent judgment. We term this pattern Differential Information Dilution (DID). A comparison with 300 real-world health queries provides preliminary evidence of rank-order validity. A knowledge-guided mitigation prompt reduces information dilution for most models, with the largest reductions in underinformative simplification observed for Claude (~8%) and Qwen (~6%). Code and data are available at https://github.com/Rainxu09/MIRA.

As Artificial Intelligence (AI) literacy initiatives expand in K-12 settings, understanding how gender shapes student baseline perceptions, tool-use, and responsiveness to interventions is essential for equitable curriculum design. This study examines gender differences in AI literacy, safety awareness, and STEM career aspirations among Australian secondary students (Years 7, 8, and 10; N(pre) = 199, n(post) = 136) from two co-educational government schools who participated in a one-day AI literacy workshop. Using statistical regression methods controlling for year level and school, we found that pre-workshop, male students reported significantly higher STEM career interest across all three domains (AI, computer science, and engineering), while female students were significantly more likely to use AI for schoolwork and to seek advice from AI tools. Gender-differentiated patterns also emerged in deepfake behaviours: males were significantly more likely to have created or shared deepfake content. Both genders improved in AI knowledge post-intervention, yet females showed a richer profile of gains: wider conceptual understanding, greater confidence, and meaningful increases in AI and CS career interest that partially narrowed the gender STEM gap. These findings highlight the need for gender-responsive AI curricula, particularly deepfake safety education for male students, and demonstrate that even single-day workshops can narrow gender gaps in STEM aspirations and AI confidence.

Large Multimodal Models (LMMs) have recently shown strong performance on Optical Character Recognition (OCR) tasks, demonstrating their promising capability in document literacy. However, their effectiveness in real-world applications remains underexplored, as existing benchmarks adopt task scopes misaligned with practical applications and assume homogeneous acquisition conditions. To address this gap, we introduce CC-OCR V2, a comprehensive and challenging OCR benchmark tailored to real-world document processing. CC-OCR V2 focuses on practical enterprise document processing tasks and incorporates hard and corner cases that are critical yet underrepresented in prior benchmarks, covering 5 major OCR-centric tracks: text recognition, document parsing, document grounding, key information extraction, and document question answering, comprising 7,093 high-difficulty samples. Extensive experiments on 14 advanced LMMs reveal that current models fall short of real-world application requirements. Even state-of-the-art LMMs exhibit substantial performance degradation across diverse tasks and scenarios. These findings reveal a significant gap between performance on current benchmarks and effectiveness in real-world applications. We release the full dataset and evaluation toolkit at https://github.com/eioss/CC-OCR-V2.

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.

Annotation pipelines in Natural Language Processing (NLP) commonly assume a single latent ground truth per instance and resolve disagreement through label aggregation. Perspectivist approaches challenge this view by treating disagreement as potentially informative rather than erroneous. We present a large-scale analysis of graded health-literacy annotations from 6,323 open-ended COVID-19 responses collected in Ecuador and Peru. Each response was independently labeled by multiple annotators using proportional correctness scores, reflecting the degree to which responses align with normative public-health guidelines, allowing us to analyze the full distribution of judgments rather than aggregated labels. Variance decomposition shows that question-level conceptual difficulty accounts for substantially more variance than annotator identity, indicating that disagreement is structured by the task itself rather than driven by individual raters. Agreement-stratified analyses further reveal that key social-scientific effects, including country, education, and urban-rural differences, vary in magnitude and in some cases reverse direction across levels of inter-annotator agreement. These findings suggest that graded health-literacy evaluation contains both epistemically stable and unstable components, and that aggregating across them can obscure important inferential differences. We therefore argue that strong perspectivist modeling is not only conceptually justified but statistically necessary for valid inference in graded interpretive tasks.

For four decades, the QWERTY keyboard organized white-collar knowledge work. Typing's dominance was instrumental, not cognitively necessary. As multimodal AI achieves human-parity understanding of speech and gesture, this necessity dissolves. We introduce instrumental dissolution -- loss of institutional-default status while persisting in specialist niches. The keyboard era ends not through hardware replacement but through migration of its function into AI systems. The central contribution identifies the verification bottleneck: as AI collapses production friction, the primary constraint shifts from generation to evaluation. Knowledge workers become adversarial auditors rather than keystroke-producers. This restructures professional expertise, organizational communication, and how productive labor is recognized. Converging evidence from history, philosophy, neuroscience, technology, organizational studies, and cultural analysis supports this thesis. We map synthetic literacy -- oral input generating literate output -- as the defining feature of this transition. Under three scenarios (optimistic: 2028-2035; base: 2035-2045; pessimistic: 2045-2060), we specify disconfirmation criteria that would weaken the thesis if observed. We propose seven interface primitives operationalizing verification-centered HCI.

Objective: This study develops and validates a patient simulation framework that aligns with the National Institute of Standards and Technology AI Risk Management Framework MAP and MEASURE functions, providing an empirical basis for identifying and characterizing performance risks in conversational clinical AI across medical, linguistic, and behavioral patient variation. We applied the framework to a conversational decision aid for antidepressant selection in major depressive disorder. Methods: The simulator integrates three profile dimensions: (1) medical profiles constructed from All of Us electronic health records using risk-ratio gating; (2) linguistic profiles modeling a health literacy gradient and condition-specific communication; and (3) behavioral profiles representing cooperative, distracted, and adversarial engagement. We generated 500 simulated conversations and evaluated profile fidelity through human annotation and a large language model (LLM) judge, then assessed downstream effects on the AI Decision Aid's concept retrieval and antidepressant recommendations. Results: The patient simulator expressed medical concepts with high fidelity (96.6% accurate across 8,210 concepts), with human inter-annotator agreement of 0.73$κ$ and LLM-judge agreement against human annotators of 0.78$κ$, both indicating substantial agreement. Behavioral profiles were reliably distinguished (0.93$κ$, near perfect agreement), and linguistic profiles showed substantial agreement at the lower bound of the substantial range (0.61$κ$), adequate to support profile-level analysis. The framework revealed monotonic degradation in AI Decision Aid performance across the health literacy gradient. Rank-1 concept retrieval increased from 47.6% for limited health literacy to 81.9% for proficient health literacy, with corresponding declines in antidepressant recommendation accuracy.