PreprintCited by 1Digital literacy in educationArtificial Intelligence in EducationLibrary Science and Information Literacy

Beyond Tool Adoption: A Practical Five-Stage Developmental Continuum for AI Literacy in Higher Education

Open access
Liu, J. Paul, Levy, Rachel·2026·arXiv

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.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2606.00038

Cites

0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

The publisher hasn’t deposited this paper’s reference list.

Research works printed but not linked: 7

  1. Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (Eds.). (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives. Longman. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235465787
  2. David McKay Company. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1957-01158-000
  3. Bjork, R. A. (1994). Memory and metamemory considerations in the training of human beings. In J. Metcalfe & A. Shimamura (Eds.), Metacognition: Knowing about knowing (pp. 185-205). MIT Press.
  4. Dreyfus, H. L., & Dreyfus, S. E. (1986). Mind over machine: The power of human intuition and expertise in the era of the computer. Free Press. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/4307079
  5. Laupichler, M. C., Pinski, M., & Grunhagen, D. (2025). The AI Literacy Heptagon: A structured approach to AI literacy in higher education. arXiv preprint. https://arxiv.org/abs/2509.18900 · arXiv
  6. Ng, D. T. K., Luo, W., Chan, H. M. Y., & Chu, S. K. W. (2024). Design and validation of the AI literacy questionnaire: The affective, behavioural, cognitive and ethical approach. British Journal of Educational Technology, 55(3), 1082-1104. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13411 OECD. (2025). AI Literacy Framework for primary and secondary education. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. https://ailiteracyframework.org · DOI
  7. Perry, W. G. (1970). Forms of intellectual and ethical development in the college years: A scheme. Holt, Rinehart and Winston. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1970-20701-000

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Liu, J. P., & Levy, R.
Affiliations
North Carolina State University (US)
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2026
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W7163193928
Cited by
0
References
0
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
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, artificial intelligence in higher education, learner development, critical evaluation of AI, responsible AI use, AI literacy education, AI literacy assessment

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