Cited by 243Digital literacy in educationArtificial Intelligence in EducationLibrary Science and Information Literacy

AI literacy for users – A comprehensive review and future research directions of learning methods, components, and effects

Open access
Pinski, Marc, Benlian, Alexander·2024·Computers in Human Behavior: Artificial Humans

Abstract

The rapid advancement of artificial intelligence (AI) has brought transformative changes to various aspects of human life, leading to an exponential increase in the number of AI users. The broad access and usage of AI enable immense benefits but also give rise to significant challenges. One way for AI users to address these challenges is to develop AI literacy, referring to human proficiency in different subject areas of AI that enable purposeful, efficient, and ethical usage of AI technologies. This study aims to comprehensively understand and structure the research on AI literacy for AI users through a systematic, scoping literature review. Therefore, we synthesize the literature, provide a conceptual framework, and develop a research agenda. Our review paper holistically assesses the fragmented AI literacy research landscape (68 papers) while critically examining its specificity to different user groups and its distinction from other technology literacies, exposing that research efforts are partly not well integrated. We organize our findings in an overarching conceptual framework structured along the learning methods leading to, the components constituting, and the effects stemming from AI literacy. Our research agenda – oriented along the developed conceptual framework – sheds light on the most promising research opportunities to prepare AI users for an AI-powered future of work and society.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.chbah.2024.100062

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Cultures with higher technological adaptation may foster greater familiarity and comfort with AI, while economically disadvantaged regions may exhibit lower AI literacy due to limited access to technology and resources.

    “For instance, cultures with higher levels of technological adaptation may foster greater familiarity and comfort with AI, while economically disadvantaged regions may exhibit lower AI literacy due to limited access to technology and resources (Pinski & Benlian, 2024).”
  • The field lacks a structured yet adaptable framework to translate AI literacy concepts into educational practice.

    “Absence of an actionable framework for implementation: The field lacks a structured yet adaptable framework to translate AIL concepts into educational practice.”

    From The AI literacy heptagon: A structured approach to AI literacy in higher education (2026) · cites this paper as Pinski and Benlian, 2024

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 103 · Cited by 243

Authors
Pinski, M., & Benlian, A.
Affiliations
Technische Universität Darmstadt (DE)
Corresponding author
Pinski, Marc
Venue
Computers in Human Behavior: Artificial Humans
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2024-01
Volume
2
Issue
1
Pages
100062
ISSN
2949-8821 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4392752316
Cited by
243
References
103
Citations by year
2026: 132 · 2025: 96 · 2024: 15
FWCI
91.37
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Computers in Human Behavior Artificial Humans (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Digital literacy in education
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Artificial Intelligence in Education
  • Social Sciences › Library and Information Sciences › Library Science and Information Literacy
Keywords
AI literacy, AI users, learning methods, technological literacy, conceptual framework, research agenda, future of work, ethical AI use

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review