aiqbench analysis
This paper introduces a five-stage developmental continuum for AI literacy in higher education, moving beyond simple tool adoption to diagnose learner progression from uncritical reliance to critical evaluation. The model offers educators a practical diagnostic framework aligned with UNESCO and OECD standards, supported by observational data from a pilot program at North Carolina State University. For the tech audience, the key takeaway is that effective AI literacy requires sustained, discipline-embedded experiences rather than isolated workshops to foster responsible system application.
Beyond Tool Adoption: A Practical Five-Stage Developmental Continuum for AI Literacy in Higher Education
arXiv:2606.00038v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: 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.
Abstract: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.
Computers and Society (cs.CY); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)
arXiv:2606.00038 [cs.CY]
(or arXiv:2606.00038v3 [cs.CY] for this version)
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 262 words
Related coverage
Beyond Tool Adoption: A Practical Five-Stage Developmental Continuum for AI Literacy in Higher Education
arXiv · Jun 4, 2026
Beyond Tool Adoption: A Practical Five-Stage Developmental Continuum for AI Literacy in Higher Education
arXiv · Jun 10, 2026
Beyond Tool Adoption: A Practical Five-Stage Developmental Continuum for AI Literacy in Higher Education
arXiv · Jun 8, 2026

BRICS Draws a New Global Line: Full Text of New Delhi Declaration
slguardian.org · Sep 12, 2026