This randomized trial assesses AI literacy's impact on student perceptions of GenAI in higher education, suggesting a need for improved training methods.
Scholars, policymakers, and educators have proposed definitions of AI literacy that differ in their details but share an assumption that students will inevitably use GenAI throughout their lives, opting out only occasionally. In this article, the authors discuss a hands-on AI literacy activity performed with pen and paper and designed using an opt-in approach to GenAI. Working with 113 students in multiple sections of required first-year-composition at a public university, the authors piloted the activity and administered a validated survey to assess student attitudes toward GenAI before and after. While the survey showed little change in students’ attitudes, it did reveal the range of perceptions students have toward GenAI and how it impacts their agency as writers, learners, and young professionals. As the authors show, students often reproduce the narratives found in corporate marketing and documentation, drawing on them to navigate long-standing cultural and structural problems within higher education, particularly endemic transactional views of writing. The authors conclude that AI literacy training must foreground human activity awareness, focusing on human attention, choices, perceptions, and thoughts.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Black et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: