Computers and Education Open 6 (2024) 100159

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Computers and Education Open

journal homepage: www.sciencedirect.com/journal/computers-and-education-open

Artificial intelligence literacy for technology education

Karin Stolpe *, Jonas Hallström
Department of Behavioural Sciences and Learning (IBL), Linköping University, Norrköping, Sweden

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The interest in artificial intelligence (AI) in education has erupted during the last few years, primarily due to
AI literacy technological advances in AI. It is therefore argued that students should learn about AI, although it is debated
Ethical issues exactly how it should be applied in education. AI literacy has been suggested as a way of defining competencies
AI in education
for students to acquire to meet a future everyday- and working life with AI. This study argues that researchers
and educators need a framework for integrating AI literacy into technological literacy, where the latter is viewed
as a multiliteracy. This study thus aims to critically analyse and discuss different components of AI literacy found
in the literature in relation to technological literacy. The data consists of five AI literacy frameworks related to
three traditions of technological knowledge: technical skills, technological scientific knowledge, and socio-
ethical technical understanding. The results show that AI literacy for technology education emphasises tech­
nological scientific knowledge (e.g., knowledge about what AI is, how to recognise AI, and systems thinking) and
socio-ethical technical understanding (e.g., AI ethics and the role of humans in AI). Technical skills such as
programming competencies also appear but are less emphasised. Implications for technology education are also
discussed, and a framework for AI literacy for technology education is suggested.

1. Introduction Netflix or YouTube. We learn new languages using applications such as

Duolingo and get advertisements on social media adjusted to what our
Even though artificial intelligence (AI) is not a new phenomenon profile tells us about who we are, where we are and what we are
within computer science research (e.g., [1,2]), the interest in AI in ed­ interested in. AI-driven applications affect our ways of living and
ucation has exploded during the last few years [3]. Arguably, this interacting with technology and the people around us. The boundary
development is mainly due to technological advances in AI. In the between humans and machines is also increasingly blurred as interfaces
technology education field, technological development in society has change. We talk to Siri, ask Google to tell us about the weather, unlock
challenged and led to an expansion of what should be included in the the smartphone by showing our face to it and get instructions from the
curriculum, for example, the recent introduction of programming for smartwatch that it is time to move. As technology becomes more inte­
K-12 on a global level, which is also mirrored in technology education grated into our lives, it is also increasingly harder to notice. It is designed
research. In a Swedish context, for example, research on programming not to cause friction between the user and the device (e.g., [14,15]).
within technology education was sparse during the first decades of the Recent research argues that all citizens should learn about AI [12,16,
2000s [4], but during the past five years programming content has 17]. There are two main arguments for why. First, education about AI is
become a natural part of technology education research both in Sweden needed to help students understand what AI is and how it works [12,18].
(e.g., [5,6]) and internationally (e.g., [7–9]). Programming has thus Second, young people should be inspired to future careers as designers of
been argued to be one of the so-called 21st-century skills [10]. AI applications, software developers and AI researchers [18]. One aspect
However, as an answer to recent rapid technological development, of knowledge about AI is distinguishing between technological artefacts
scholars and policymakers have highlighted the importance of incor­ that use and do not use AI [16,18], as well as critical and ethical per­
porating AI literacy into the K-12 curriculum [11–13]. AI is already an spectives. Identifying AI applications will be even more difficult as the
integral part of our daily lives. We use smart home appliances such as technology develops towards a more integrated, friction-free user
robot vacuum cleaners and smartphones. Based on our previous pref­ interface. This is related to the so-called AI effect, that once a new AI
erences, we receive suggestions for what we should watch next on application has been integrated and accepted in a particular context, it is

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: [email protected] (K. Stolpe).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeo.2024.100159
Received 3 October 2023; Received in revised form 1 November 2023; Accepted 14 November 2023
Available online 5 January 2024
2666-5573/© 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
K. Stolpe and J. Hallström Computers and Education Open 6 (2024) 100159

no longer regarded as AI and will therefore be more complicated to scientific knowledge within a technological context. Within this cate­
distinguish from non-AI (e.g., [19]). In addition, at the present rate, new gory, it is essential to understand why things work and methods used
AI innovations are launched almost every day in both current and new come from technological and natural science traditions; 3) Socio-ethical
application areas. technical understanding includes how technology relates to humans, so­
In response, this study aims to critically analyse and discuss different ciety, and the environment. The relationship between technology and
components of AI literacy found in the literature in relation to techno­ the human and natural worlds is highlighted within this category, and
logical literacy. First, we will present technological literacy as it is the methods have their foundation in the humanities and social sciences.
conceived in technology education and then conceptions of AI literacy. Thereby, the framework, as a whole, puts the multidisciplinary nature of
Second, we will compare components of these two types of literacy to technology education and technological multiliteracy in the spotlight,
elucidate aspects of AI literacy that have implications for technological something also reflected in the conception of technological literacy put
literacy and technology education. forward by Williams [23,29].

1.1. Technological literacy as multiliteracy 1.2. Artificial intelligence

Although literacy originally had to do with reading and writing, the Alan Turing, a mathematician and computer scientist, was the first
concept has come to be used to denote knowledge, skills, and compe­ person to present a modern computational model for intelligent
tencies that a person would need in any given area to function as a reasoning. His paper from 1950 opens with the sentence: “I propose to
citizen. Regarding, for example, science, it would be science or scientific consider the question, ‘Can machines think?’” ([30], p. 433). This
literacy, and for computing, computer or computational literacy. The question raised by Turing has continued to be central to artificial in­
concept has garnered criticism, especially in science education, where telligence research since then [31].
multiple conflicting definitions abound (e.g., [20]). However, in tech­ The “perceptron” is the core concept of neural network algorithms
nology education, there is a fair degree of consensus, not the least thanks and was first introduced by Frank Rosenblatt [32]. The word combines
to the work of the International Technology and Engineering Educators the two terms “perception” and “neuron”. The concept denotes a binary
Association in the USA in the last couple of decades (see, [21,22]). A classifier that can decide whether or not an input belongs to a specific
comprehensive and much-quoted summary of technological literacy is class. Moreover, the concept of perceptron assigns a probabilistic model
the following: “Technological literacy is the ability to use, manage, for information storage and organisation in the brain. Later, Minsky and
assess, and understand technology” ([21], p. 7). Papert developed the concept further to today’s machine learning and
Williams [23] argues that seeing technological literacy as the goal of deep learning. Minsky and Papert’s work “Perceptrons” has dramatically
technology education has appeal because of its multidimensionality. It influenced AI education [32].
can be related to having a technologically literate workforce, which In his book “Mindstorms: Children, Computers, and Powerful Ideas”,
would benefit the national economy. It could also relate to the in­ Papert discusses his ideas further [1]. Papert was influenced by Piaget.
dividual’s level of literacy and the personal satisfaction connected to They are both convinced that students have to be active in constructing
that. Also, it relates to social responsibility and democracy in a tech­ their knowledge, and they do so most efficiently when engaged in
nological society. constructing things in the world. For that purpose, he and his colleagues
Technological literacy is generally constituted of three dimensions developed computer environments that challenged students to solve
[23]. The first dimension concerns the ability to use technology. The mathematical problems. Papert wanted to apply ideas from AI to engage
second is the knowledge and understanding dimension. The third students to think about their thinking [33]. By learning about how
dimension concerns awareness or appreciation of the relationships be­ machines work, students could learn more about how they learn:
tween technology, society, and the environment. Today’s students
AI is concerned with extending the capacity of machines to perform
belong to a generation that has grown up familiar with communications
functions that would be considered intelligent if performed by peo­
technology. These so-called “Digital Natives” have a different relation­
ple. Its goal is to construct machines, and, in doing so, it can be
ship to digital technology than the generations before. Also, the intro­
thought of as a branch of advanced engineering. But in order to
duction of social media, digital communication, information overflow,
construct such machines, it is usually necessary to reflect not only on
and accessibility put new demands on what constitutes technological
the nature of machines but on the nature of the intelligent functions
literacy.
to be performed. ([1], p. 176)
In this study, we are inspired by The New London Group [24,25], and
in line with, for example, Kahn and Kellner [26] and Williams [23], we However, Papert’s vision of using AI and machine learning to
thus see technological literacy as a broad multiliteracy, an umbrella develop students’ metacognition has not gained a strong impact in ed­
concept covering several other sub-literacies closely connected to the ucation. Instead, most of today’s AI in education have different goals,
technological one. In this way, we address some of the criticisms against focusing more on the machines as intelligent, in line with Turing, rather
the literacy concept (e.g., many, often conflicting definitions; too gen­ than on understanding human intelligence [33].
eral and sweeping competencies), at the same time as we maintain that The critique from Papert is also evident regarding research on arti­
the specific sub-literacies do not contradict the overall focus of the ficial intelligence in education. So far, the main focus is AI to help stu­
technological multiliteracy and also allow for technological change. The dent learning [34,35]. However, researchers have also discussed what
sub-literacies would include, for example, craft literacy, digital literacy, students need to know in a society influenced by artificial intelligence.
media literacy, design literacy, AI literacy, and computer literacy. The The term AI literacy has been coined to capture what knowledge and
aim of such multiliteracy is both the understanding of technology itself skills students need to navigate in an AI-influenced society. However, no
and its embeddedness in a particular cultural, societal, and political established curriculum for AI content knowledge is available [18].
context, which is essential for furthering democratic values in relation to
present and future technologies [27]. 1.2.1. Defining artificial intelligence
Nordlöf et al. [28] propose an epistemological framework of tech­ Research on artificial intelligence in educational settings seldom
nology education, which can be used as a tool for specifying and con­ defines the term. According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, artifi­
cretising the components of technological literacy. Their framework cial intelligence is the capability of a machine to imitate intelligent
consists of three categories of technological knowledge: 1) Technical human behaviour. The definition of an ‘artificially created’ and ‘intel­
skills focus on how things work, not why they work, and are justified by ligent’ machine is well dispersed in human culture. The term can be
experience; 2) Technological scientific knowledge concerns general traced back to 1955, when it was coined by John McCarthy and

2
K. Stolpe and J. Hallström Computers and Education Open 6 (2024) 100159

colleagues [36]. arises when AI is used to personalise communication content on a large

Several policy organisations have tried to define the term. Amongst scale, such as commercial or user-generated messages, which can raise
those are UNESCO and OECD. The definitions of AI have expanded and ethical concerns. To tackle these challenges, Hermann [41] suggests
evolved [37]. In the definition by UNESCO, AI refers to machines that promoting AI literacy to empower users of AI-driven mass person­
imitate some aspects of “human intelligence, such as perception, alisation. Additionally, explicability is considered the most important
learning, reasoning, problem-solving, language interaction and creative ethical principle, as black-box AI, where the decision-making process is
work” ([13], p. 9). Currently, no AI system can be considered generally not transparent, can hinder individuals’ ability to make ethical judg­
‘intelligent’ in the sense that it can perform well in different contexts ments. Four potential ethical and societal risks have been highlighted
(so-called strong AI), which is an ability of human intelligence [38]. when AI applications are used in education [42]. First, privacy is an
Weak AI, that is, the ability of AI to perform a more narrow set of issue when students and teachers use face recognition or recommender
intelligent tasks, has been much more successful, for instance, recently systems. Second, bias and discrimination could be a risk pertaining to
in new generative AI applications based on large language models. gender or cultural or ethical background [43]. Third, surveillance via
OECD defines an AI system as “a machine-based system that can, for student activity in personalised learning systems could be a potential
a given set of human-defined objectives, make predictions, recommen­ risk. Fourth, students’ autonomy and agency could be jeopardised
dations or decisions influencing real or virtual environments” ([39], p. through predictive systems.
23).
Even though this definition works in everyday life, it could be 2. Method and materials
challenged from a scientific and technical perspective. Margaret Boden
argues that AI has two aims. One is technological, meaning computers are In this study, we have chosen to analyse five frameworks for AI lit­
used to get useful things done. The other is scientific, implying that AI eracy and AI curricula from the literature. The frameworks have been
concepts and models are employed to answer questions about human chosen because they have been significant within research on AI in
beings and other living things ([40], p. 2). education. The frameworks will then be related to technological literacy
Technologies might be model-driven. For example, scientists develop in order to present a model for AI literacy in technology education as a
a scientific model which technology can advance based on such models. subset of technological multiliteracy:
However, when it comes to the human mind, there is still an unreachable
dream to fetch all those complex processes into a model-based cognitive • The AI4K12 Initiative and The Big Ideas in AI [17,44].
machine [38]. Instead, current AI is based on a data-driven approach • The Machine Learning Education Framework [45].
aided by statistical models of probability. Moreover, at its core, AI is • Competencies and design considerations for AI literacy [16].
machine learning. However, even if AI has different goals, many AI re­ • The Holistic Approach to the Design of AI Education for K-12 schools
searchers do not care about how the human mind works. Rather than a [18].
scientific understanding, they seek technological efficiency [40]. • UNESCO’s map of domains and subdomains for AI education [13].
AI is a diverse field. There is no core technique unifying the field, and
the practitioners work in different areas, having diverse goals and The frameworks build on different empirical and philosophical
methods [40]. This could explain the lack of coherent definitions and foundations. The Big Ideas in AI is based on work done by experts in AI
straightforward descriptions of what AI is. However, three areas central education. The Machine Learning Education Framework is constructed
to AI in society generally, and in education specifically, are worth as a curriculum for people interested in AI. Competencies and design
mentioning: AI techniques, AI technologies and AI ethics. considerations for AI literacy are based on an extensive literature re­
view. The Holistic Approach to the Design of AI Education has its
1.2.2. AI techniques, technologies, and ethics empirical foundation in interviews with teachers teaching AI at different
AI could be interpreted as an umbrella concept covering technical, levels in school. The UNESCO map builds on the three first frameworks
technological, and ethical aspects [13]. and applies those to AI curricula from different countries around the
AI techniques describe how the computer works. The overall tech­ globe. They then suggest a new framework, presented as UNESCO’s
nique is based on the input of data. Examples of techniques are “classical map.
AI” ,1 which is rule-based, using conditional if-then statements to Our above selection of literature was carried out as a type of narrative
generate output [13]. Classical AI can model learning, planning and review, which aims to identify central literature for the topic at hand
reasoning, especially when combined with statistics [40]. without following a pre-determined protocol [46]. The previously
Another example is “machine learning”, which refers to a computer described frameworks for technological literacy and technology educa­
program that can ‘learn’ without explicit programming by accessing a tion informed the analysis inspired by qualitative content analysis.
significant amount of data [13]. Hence, data is crucial for the program to Qualitative content analysis is a method for systematic description and
‘learn’. analysis of written, verbal or visual information [47], which was loosely
Different kinds of machine learning, such as neural networks, consist employed when analysing and categorising the AI frameworks con­
of machine learning algorithms. Artificial neural networks (ANNs) cerning technological literacy according to the phases of preparation,
comprise many interconnected units where each unit can only compute organising and reporting. Our approach was deductive as the objective
one thing. Moreover, ANNs can learn, and the principle of learning is was to, in Elo and Kyngäs’ [47] words, “test a previous theory in a
“fire together, wire together”. The so-called Hebbian2 learning different situation” (p. 107).
strengthens often-used connections, making it more likely in the future
[40]. 3. AI literacy and technological literacy
Previous studies have identified several ethical challenges associated
with the development and use of AI. These challenges exist from both The following section presents the five AI literacy frameworks and
the perspective of the developers and the users. One such challenge relates them to technological literacy. After that, based on the analyses,
a new framework for AI literacy, adjusted for technology education, will
be presented.
1
Sometimes classical AI is referred to as Good-Old-Fashioned AI (GOFAI)
(Boden, M. A. [40]. AI: Its nature and future. Oxford University Press. 3.1. The AI4K12 initiative and the big ideas in AI
2
The rule was stated by the neuropsychologist Donald Hebb in the 1940s.
(ibid.) The first national guidelines in the US were introduced by the

3
K. Stolpe and J. Hallström Computers and Education Open 6 (2024) 100159

AI4K12 Initiative [44]. Later, the framework was further developed a competence-based framework focused on ‘head, heart and hands’ [13].
based on knowledge from best practice [17]. The organisational The head represents the cognitive domain (what you know), the heart
framework of the guidelines is based on the Five Big Ideas in AI represents the affective domain (why it matters), and the hands repre­
(Table 1). The Five Big Ideas have worked as a foundation to suggest sent the psychomotor domain (what you can do with it). The Machine
guidelines for kindergarten to year 12. Learning Education Framework proposes a framework for courses
Different learning concepts have been defined regarding concept designed for ML-engaged citizens [45]. The framework is based on
components within each of the Big Ideas. For example, three learning knowledge (head), skills (hand) and attitudes (heart) (Table 2).
concepts have been outlined for the Big Idea Perception: sensing, pro­ Within technological literacy, the three aspects of knowledge, skills
cessing, and domain knowledge. The components of living things, and attitudes are highly relevant. They could be compared to the three-
computer sensors and digital encoding have defined sensing. A learning part heuristic framework for technology education [28]. The first cate­
outcome progression has been suggested for each of those conceptual gory of the Machine Learning Education Framework, Knowledge, has
components. Regarding the learning concept of sensing and the learning two aspects that could be incorporated into the category of technological
component of living things, a progression from identifying human senses scientific knowledge: General ML knowledge and Knowledge of ML
for kindergartners to giving examples of how humans combine infor­ methods. However, the second two aspects, Bias in ML systems and
mation from multiple modalities in year eight is proposed [13]. Societal implications of AI, fit better into the category of socio-ethical
As seen in Table 1, the input aspect is explicated within this frame­ technical understanding.
work. Computers need to perceive information, and sensors are how to Regarding skills, the two frameworks are concerned with practical
do so. The information from the sensors also needs to be processed in aspects such as project planning and creating. However, the Machine
order to be usable. The information, or data, is used by the computer to Learning Education Framework emphasises that cognitive aspects are
learn. Hence, within this framework, AI is part of an integrated tech­ related to the practical work. It is not only a matter of doing what works,
nological system in which hardware and software are necessary aspects. based on experience, as in the heuristic framework for technology ed­
This is an example of systems thinking, an important aspect of techno­ ucation. Instead, the cognitive aspects are highlighted in terms of
logical literacy [48]. Moreover, the societal impact of AI is raised within ‘explicit and implicit design intentions’, ‘critically analyse’, and ‘plan a
this framework. The issues such as bias and transparency are important solution sensitive to both technical and contextual considerations’.
aspects of critical thinking. The societal impact also enhances the rela­ The aspect of Attitudes does not correspond to an exact equivalent in
tionship between humans and technology. the three-part heuristic framework for technology education [28]. These
Based on the three-part heuristic framework for technology educa­ aspects are more on a meta-level, with components such as interest and
tion [28], the categories of technical skills and technological scientific self-efficacy. Even though such components are important, at least from
knowledge can be said to be closely intertwined with the Big Ideas in AI. the perspective of attracting future workforce within AI technology, it is
However, in Big Idea 3, learning is divided into four insights about not possible to fully relate to the epistemological framework presented
machine learning: 1) the definition of machine learning, 2) how machine by Nordlöf and colleagues.
learning algorithms work, 3) the role of training data, and 4) the
learning phase vs. application phase [17]. All those four insights align 3.3. Competencies and design considerations for AI literacy
more with technological scientific knowledge than technical skills. The
insights presuppose knowledge reflected and grounded in technological Long and Magerko [16] present a series of competencies and design
knowledge about how the system works and what role data plays in considerations for AI literacy (Table 3). Their framework is based on a
machine learning, not just carrying out the actual coding (technical scoping literature review. Seventeen competencies and 15 design con­
skills). siderations emerged from their review.
Moreover, the socio-ethical technical understanding [28] is also The first three overarching themes are: What is AI? What can AI do?
represented in this framework regarding AI’s positive and negative and How does AI work? and they are more or less connected to Tech­
impact on society. Herein, ethical considerations are also integrated. nological scientific knowledge from the three-part heuristic framework
for technology education [28].
3.2. The machine learning education framework However, there are also competencies, such as no. 10, which high­
lights the role of humans in AI. This competency explicates that it is
In a framework presented by Lao [45], a gradual integration of important to recognise the role of humans in choosing models, pro­
theories such as constructivism and experiential learning has resulted in gramming, and fine-tuning the AI system. Also, no. 16, ethics, raises
issues such as ethical decision-making, bias, and transparency [16].
Table 1 Furthermore, no. 6 of the design considerations, opportunities to pro­
The Big Ideas in AI [17]. gram, and no. 8, critical thinking, emphasise the role of humans in AI.
Technology is not detached from human influence; therefore, humans
Big Idea Description
also have a responsibility, both as developers and as users of AI. Those
1. Perception: Computers perceive the Sensors provide computers with
competencies align with socio-ethical technical understanding and how
world using sensors information that can be used for
extracting meaning. AI will affect humans and society.
2. Representation and reasoning: Representation drives reasoning, and Within this framework suggested by Long and Magerko [16], there is
Agents maintain representations of reasoners operate on representations. not much emphasis on practical technical skills. Not even in the design
the world and use them for reasoning consideration, the aspect of practical work or technical skill is evident.
3. Learning: Computers can learn from A machine learning algorithm
However, one aspect that is illuminated is the systems approach. Within
data constructs a reasoner by adjusting the
internal representations of a design consideration, no. 5 unveils gradually; this is mentioned from a
reasoning model, such as a decision cognitive load perspective. Long and Magerko [16] suggest that teach­
tree or a neural network. ing should focus on one or a few system components simultaneously to
4. Natural Interaction: Intelligent Knowledge about language,
prevent cognitive overload. Understanding how digital and physical
agents require many kinds of “common sense”, cultural knowledge,
knowledge in order to interact and knowledge about human
components interact is an important aspect of AI literacy.
naturally with humans emotions.
5. Societal impact: AI can impact Relevant issues include fairness, bias, 3.4. The holistic approach to the design of AI education for K-12 schools
society in both positive and negative transparency of automated decision-
ways making systems, etc.
Another conceptual framework for AI Education curriculum in K-12

4
K. Stolpe and J. Hallström Computers and Education Open 6 (2024) 100159

Table 2
The Machine Learning Education Framework with learning outcomes and definitions [45]. Table based on [13].
Knowledge

1. General ML knowledge Know what machine learning is and is not. Understand the entire ML system.
2. Knowledge of ML methods Identify when to use ML methods and understand how different methods work.
3. Bias in ML systems Understand that systems can be biased and the different levels and ways bias can be introduced.
4. Societal implications of AI Understand that ML systems can have widespread positive and negative impacts. Consider ethical, cultural, and societal implications.

Skills

1. ML problem scoping Determine which problems can and should be solved by ML.
2. ML project planning Plan a solution that is sensitive to both technical and contextual considerations.
3. Creating ML artefacts Use tools to create appropriate artefacts.
4. Analysis of ML design interactions and Describe the explicit and implicit design intentions of an ML system. Critically analyse the intentions against how the system can
results and should be used.
5. ML advocacy Critically discuss ML policies, products, and education.
6. Independent out-of-class learning Seek learning experiences outside the classroom.

Attitudes

1 Interest Engagement and motivation for the topic.

2. Identity and community Contributing to and learning from a community of peers.
3. Self-efficacy Empowered to build new, meaningful things.
4. Persistence Continuing and expanding engagement with ML.

Table 3 Table 4
Competencies and design considerations for AI literacy [16]. The holistic approach to the design of AI education for K-12 schools [18].
Overarching theme Competency Design consideration Theme Subtheme Contained in subtheme

What is AI? 1. Recognizing AI Curriculum as content Knowledge in AI Definition of AI

2. Understanding and product Development of AI
intelligence Process in AI Perception
3. Interdisciplinary Technical skills
4. General vs. narrow AI Impact of AI Social impact
What can AI do? 5. AI’s strengths and AI ethics and human bias
weaknesses Curriculum as process Student relevance Authenticity
6. Imagine future AI and praxis Local understanding with a
How does AI work? 7. Representations 1. Explainability global perspective
8. Decision-making 2. Embodied interactions Teacher-student Consistent terminology
9. ML steps 3. Contextualizing data communication Graphical representations
10. Human Role in AI Flexibility School environment
11. Data literacy Student needs
12. Learning from data
13. Critically interpreting
data knowledge about AI and how it could be defined and developed. Hence,
14. Action and reaction
the first subtheme could be included in Technological scientific knowl­
15. Sensors
How should AI be 16. Ethics
edge from the three-part heuristic framework for technology education
used? [28]. The second subtheme, process in AI, connects to technical skills by
How do people 17. Programmability 4. Promote transparency its foci on practical aspects. The third subtheme, impact of AI, aligns
perceive AI? 5. Unveil gradually with socio-ethical technical understanding from Nordlöf et al. [28].
6. Opportunities to program
Impact of AI concerns the social impact, AI ethics and the role of
7. Milestones
8. Critical thinking humans.
9. Identity, values and
backgrounds
10. Support for parents 3.5. UNESCO’s map of domains and subdomains for AI education
11. Social interaction
12. Leverage learners’
UNESCO has mapped governmental initiatives for AI curricula
interest
13. Acknowledging around the globe. Their report is based on 11 countries’ curricula [13].
preconceptions Table 5 summarises the main domains and subdomains for curriculum
14. New perspectives areas emerging from their analyses.
15. Low barrier entry
The first two areas cover both content and practical aspects of AI
literacy. Within UNESCO’s framework, content and practice are inter­
is suggested by Chiu [18]. The Holistic Approach to the Design of AI twined and cannot easily be separated. Instead, practical skills such as
Education for K-12 schools is designed based on interviews with 24 development, design thinking, programming, and problem-solving are
teachers and analysis of their teaching material. The findings reveal six closely connected to more theoretical knowledge such as defining AI,
critical components for AI education, organised into two themes. understanding technologies, and programming languages. Hence,
“Content and product” consists of the critical components: AI knowl­ technical skills and technological scientific knowledge could not easily
edge, AI processes, and the impact of AI, and “Process and praxis” be distinguished regarding specific activities related to AI.
contains student relevance, teacher-student communication, and flexi­ The third area is closely connected to socio-ethical technical un­
bility (Table 4). derstanding [28] since it focuses on ethics and social implications of AI
The epistemological aspects of AI literacy are found within the theme both for everyday life and work and the environment. Here, personal
of Content and product. The first subtheme, knowledge in AI, includes aspects, such as integrity and human agency, and societal aspects, such
as AI in everyday life, are included. Moreover, there is also a content

5
K. Stolpe and J. Hallström Computers and Education Open 6 (2024) 100159

Table 5 Table 6
UNESCO’s map of domains and subdomains for AI education [13]. A framework of AI literacy for technology education.
Area Domain Sub-domain Technological Technical skills Socio-ethical
scientific technical
AI foundations Algorithms Computational thinking
knowledge understanding
Algorithm definitions and
applications Epistemological Conceptual Procedural Contextual
Algorithm components stance knowledge knowledge knowledge
and processes Description of Conceptual Skill or ability to Critical thinking,
Programming Programming languages the category aspects make things work relating technology
Representations and Definitions Problem-solving to society/the
simulations Understanding Coding human world, and
Contextual problem- why things work the environment
solving or not
Data literacy Source of Technology, Experience, trial Humanities and
Understanding, using, and AI techniques AI definitions and knowledge engineering, and error, social sciences,
developing AI components science, and practical work, philosophy
Data use in AI computer science practice, rules of
History of AI thumb in
Understanding how AI computing and
works technology
AI technologies Computer and human Analytical What? How? Why?
perception question Consequences?
Understanding of AI Examples from Defining AI Programming Human role in AI
technologies AI literacy Recognising AI Data literacy, e.g., AI ethics
AI development Design thinking Understanding AI data use AI’s impact on
Product development Role of data in AI Product society and the
Ethics and social impact Applications of AI to Computational development environment
other domains thinking Privacy, integrity,
Ethics of AI Ethical terms, definitions, Design thinking and cyber security
and examples Systems thinking Bias
Access
Bias
Intellectual property guide robot movement and also how to construct algorithms necessary
Privacy and security to plan robot action. The question “What?” could be used analytically
Transparency/
explainability
and could also help teachers when planning technology education about
Human agency AI [13,18].
Social implications of AI’s advantages and Technical skills and practical work with AI are identified as proce­
AI disadvantages dural, technological knowledge within the Framework of AI literacy.
AI in everyday life and
This category describes how one makes things work. In this context, it is
work
Environmental impacts also to design and make programs work and solve problems using AI. An
Fakes and misinformation important aspect is to know when a problem can be solved using AI and
Gender when it cannot, but also when AI should be used [45]. To develop AI
artefacts and applications, some basic knowledge of programming
concepts is needed, for example, data and conditionals (if-then). The
aspect within this area that could be connected to technological scien­
technical skills are trained through practical work where learners can
tific knowledge, namely ethical terms, definitions, and examples. This
practice. In this context, practical work does not necessarily imply
sub-domain calls for content knowledge where technological aspects are
building physical models and working with robotics. It could also be to
connected to ethical ones.
code using block-based or text-based programming interfaces. We sug­
gest that the analytical question “How?” helps to illuminate what
4. Merging the frameworks: AI literacy for technology education AI-related technical skills are at hand in the technology classroom.
It could be worth mentioning that the distinction between Techno­
In order to suggest a framework for AI literacy adjusted for tech­ logical scientific knowledge and Technical skills is made only to
nology education, the three-part heuristic framework for technology emphasise the differences between the two epistemological stances.
[28] was used as a baseline. However, in this new framework for AI Hence, this is an analytical distinction. In an actual teaching situation, it
literacy, a clear connection is seen to conceptual, procedural, and is not always possible to distinguish the conceptual knowledge from the
contextual technological knowledge [49,50] (Table 6). procedural knowledge. Examples from the different frameworks indi­
The analytical question “What?” identifies technological scientific cate that working with AI in the technology classroom is a matter of
knowledge due to its orientation towards the content. This category is constant interplay between conceptual and procedural knowledge,
represented by conceptual technological knowledge, including defini­ where they presuppose each other. However, a progression could be
tions and theoretical knowledge. Technological scientific knowledge is discussed between the two. Several frameworks suggest progression
in the Framework for AI literacy, based on technological scientific where Technological scientific knowledge precedes Technical skills [17,
knowledge and computer science knowledge. The knowledge from AI 18]. For example, defining what AI is and understanding the basic
literacy that is sorted into this category are the following: defining AI concepts of how AI machines use data to develop their abilities is often
[13,18,45], recognising AI [16], understanding AI [13,16,17,45], and seen as a prerequisite for continuing to other, more practical aspects of
understanding the role of data in AI [13,16,17]. Moreover, knowledge AI. However, we propose that the relationship between Technological
that implies a particular way of thinking is sorted into this category, scientific knowledge and Technical skills within the Framework of AI
specifically, systems thinking [16,17,45], computational thinking [13, literacy should be further investigated in naturalistic educational
16], and design thinking [13,16]. For example, Long and Magerko [16] settings.
describe robotics as one branch of AI that includes many aspects, such as If a constant interplay between Technological scientific knowledge
design thinking, mathematics, and computational thinking. Robotics and Technical skills could be interpreted from the different frameworks,
can be used to teach how data from sensors can be used to localise and

6
K. Stolpe and J. Hallström Computers and Education Open 6 (2024) 100159

there is no such clear connection to the Socio-ethical technical under­ sense, this framework functioned well as an analytical tool for more
standing. However, one implication is that the learner must have a basic clearly defining AI literacy for technology education. From Table 6, it
knowledge of what AI is to be able to think critically about it. Never­ could be concluded that AI literacy for students connected to techno­
theless, this issue is of great importance and apparent in all five logical scientific knowledge (e.g., knowledge about AI and how AI works
frameworks of AI. In this epistemological stance, it is imperative to as part of a technological system) and the socio-ethical technical un­
relate AI technology to society and the human world. Therefore, the derstanding are emphasised. We term these epistemological stances as
Socio-ethical technical understanding of the Framework of AI literacy is conceptual and contextual knowledge, respectively. Defining, recog­
contextual knowledge. We argue that this is a philosophical stance, and nising, and understanding AI, how AI impacts humans and how humans
the learners practice moral thinking and ethical reasoning. Once more, impact AI are important aspects of AI literacy and technology literacy.
the interconnection between the three different epistemological stances However, the aspect of technical skills and procedural knowledge is not
are highlighted. very explicit in this framework. It could be argued that technical skills
Two different perspectives of ethics on an individual level could be are more critical in higher education for those aiming to work as AI
interpreted from the frameworks. The first is the user perspective: how developers and that it is primarily technological scientific knowledge
can AI be used, and in what situations? How can it influence our and socio-ethical technical understanding that are important at the
decision-making, and what information can we trust? Questions about primary and secondary levels. On the other hand, it is also epistemo­
equality and gender are also raised here [13]. The second perspective is logically challenging to define “pure” technical skills concerning AI;
that of the AI developer: how can we avoid bias [13,18,45]? Trans­ most capabilities require cognitive input since AI is quite different from
parency is another issue raised by several frameworks [13,17]. Ethics on traditional craft skills, such as problem-solving.
a societal level is also mentioned in some of the frameworks [13,18,45]. The framework of AI literacy for technology education (Table 6) may
Issues such as privacy, integrity, and security (of data) are some exam­ be used by researchers, policymakers, school leaders, and teachers.
ples that are raised. It could also be worth mentioning that some Researchers could use it similarly to how it has been designed and used
frameworks only mention ethics without specifying it further [16]. The in this article, namely as an analytical tool in researching AI in tech­
analytical question that guides explicating the socio-ethical technical nology education. Regarding policymakers, we suggest that the frame­
understanding is “What are the consequences?” of AI. This question is work could be used for curriculum design. In many countries, there is
also suggested to guide teachers’ work with teaching AI literacy in ongoing intense work on AI (technology) curriculum development, and
technology classrooms. the framework could guide and facilitate that type of work. School
leaders could use the framework to identify AI in technology education
5. Discussion and implications of AI literacy for technology on a school level and look for ways to integrate it in the overall planning
education of teaching at the school. Teachers, finally, could use the framework of
AI literacy for technology education to plan and evaluate their own
The framework of AI literacy for technology education (Table 6) is teaching, for example, by posing the analytical questions or making sure
suggested to be of importance for further research within this area. AI the epistemological stances are covered, to facilitate teaching and
literacy is here to stay, calling for knowledge, skills and ethical assessment. Empirical research is however suggested to get more evi­
reasoning concerning this content. dence on the practical usefulness of the framework, in research as well as
The AI literacy for technology education framework is based on in the various levels of schooling.
policy documents, empirical research in terms of interviews with Research on the use of AI in education has also highlighted several
teachers, experts in the field of AI literacy, and a literature review [13, challenges for future education. For example, the risk of students’
16–18,44,45]. In merging those materials, we argue that this framework learning inaccurate information is substantial, and assessing students’
stands on solid ground. However, research is now needed to inform the knowledge and skills is challenging, given the (lack of) quality of data on
usability of it, both as an analytical tool and as a planning tool for the Internet. It is not the first time a new technology has entered the
technology teachers. The analytical questions ought to be tested education system; for example, intense debates followed the introduc­
empirically. tion of the calculator and the computer. However, introducing AI
When programming was introduced as new content globally, the challenges our deepest beliefs about what education should be. The
researchers in technology education were slow to react. However, AI has philosopher Langdon Winner, already in 1980, stated that technology is
now become discussed within the context of technology education a non-separable part of human lives [54]. According to Winner, tech­
research [32]. As suggested in this paper, we also need a unified nologies do not only aid human activity. It shapes our ways of living,
framework adjusted to the context of technology education. giving us meaning and direction. Because of this strong intertwinement
So far, much of the research concerns how AI can be used for learning between humans and technology, it is necessary to stay critical towards
and teaching [34,35]. The entrance of generative AI has already technology. However, in this context, being critical is not equivalent to
impacted school education in at least four domains: teaching, learning, being anti-technology [55]. It is important to ask, “[Where] have
assessment, and administration [51]. For example, Steele [52] argues modern technologies added fundamentally new activities to the range of
that generative AI (such as ChatGPT) can empower students. AI can also things human beings do? Where and how have innovations in science
be used for teachers to plan their teaching, for example, field trips [53]. and technology begun to alter the very conditions of life itself?” ([56], p.
However, from a technology education perspective, studies must also 13). Winner takes the example of computer programming and asks if it is
focus on students’ learning about AI as knowledge components and as “only a powerful recombination of forms of life known for ages – doing
part of technological literacy, according to the specified epistemological mathematics, listing, sorting, planning, organizing, etc. – or is it some­
stances and content in Table 6. In this study, technological literacy is thing unprecedented?” (p. 13). It seems as if we, as human beings, have
considered a multiliteracy [27]. We argue that AI literacy should also be now approached the next level in the intertwined relationship between
considered part of that technological multiliteracy. The three di­ humans and technology. It is hard not to imagine a future that will
mensions of technological literacy [23]: the ability to use technology, radically change following the evolution of AI. Therefore, today’s stu­
knowledge and understanding of technology, and awareness and dents must develop AI literacy as part of a broad technological
appreciation of the relationships between technology, society, and multiliteracy.
environment could all be exemplified by different AI literacy compo­
nents (Table 6).
This study also shows clear connections to and between the episte­
mological views of technology education as presented by [28]. In this

7
K. Stolpe and J. Hallström Computers and Education Open 6 (2024) 100159

Declaration of generative AI and AI-assisted technologies in the [23] Williams PJ. Technological literacy: a multliteracies approach for democracy. Int J
Technol Des Educ 2009;19:237–54.
writing process
[24] New London Group. A pedagogy of multiliteracies: designing social futures. Harv
Educ Rev 1996;66(1):60–92.
While preparing this work, the authors used Grammarly to improve [25] Oozeerally S, Ramma Y, Bholoa A, Multiliteracies—New London Group. Science
the text’s spelling and grammar. After using this tool, the authors education in theory and practice: an introductory guide to learning theory. 2020.
p. 323–42.
reviewed and edited the content as needed and take full responsibility [26] Kahn R, Kellner D. Reconstructing technoliteracy: a multiple literacies approach.
for the content of the publication. In: Dakers JR, editor. Defining Technological Literacy: Towards an Epistemological
Framework. Palgrave MacMillan; 2006. p. 253–74.
[27] Hallström J. The philosophical and political value of technolgy education: fostering
Declaration of competing interest technology multiliteracies. In: Gill DD, Irving-Bell D, McLain M, Wooff D, editors.
The Bloomsbury handbook of technology education. Bloomsbury; 2024. p. 345–55.
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial [28] Nordlöf C, Norström P, Höst G, Hallström J. Towards a three-part heuristic
framework for technology education. Int J Technol Des Educ 2022;32(3):
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence 1583–604. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-021-09664-8.
the work reported in this paper. [29] Williams PJ. Critique as a disposition. In: Williams PJ, Stables K, editors. Critique
in design and technology education. Springer; 2017. p. 135–52.
[30] Turing AM. Computing machinery and intelligence. Mind 1950;59(236):433–60.
References [31] Muggleton S. Alan Turing and the development of Artificial Intelligence. AI
Commun 2014;27(1):3–10.
[1] Papert S. Mindstorms: children, computers, and powerful ideas. Basic Books; 2020/ [32] Park W, Kwon H. Implementing artificial intelligence education for middle school
1980. technology education in Republic of Korea. Int J Technol Des Educ 2023. https://
[2] Robertson M. Artificial intelligence in education. Nature 1976;262:435–7. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s10798-023-09812-2.
doi.org/10.1038/262435a0. [33] Resnick M. Foreword: the seeds that Seymour sowed. In: Seymour AP, editor.
[3] Humble N, Mozelius P. The threat, hype, and promise of artificial intelligence in Mindstorms: children, computers, and powerful ideas. Basic Books; 2020.
education. Discov Artif Intell 2022;2(1):22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44163-022- [34] Holmes W, Bialik M, Fadel C. Artificial intelligence in education. Globethics
00039-z. Publications; 2023.
[4] Hallström J. Ett forskningsfält i tillväxt: teman i svensk teknikdidaktisk forskning. [35] Xu W, Ouyang F. A systematic review of AI role in the educational system based on
In: Stolpe K, Höst G, Hallström J, editors. Teknikdidaktisk forskning för lärare: a proposed conceptual framework. Educ Inf Technol 2022;27(3):4195–223.
bidrag från en forskningsmiljö. NATDID, Nationellt centrum för https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10774-y.
naturvetenskapernas och teknikens didaktik; 2018. p. 75–91. [36] McCarthy J, Minsky ML, Rochester N, Shannon CE. A proposal for the Dartmouth
[5] Bjursten E-L, Nilsson T, Gumaelius L. Computer programming in primary schools: summer research project on artificial intelligence, August 31, 1955. AI Mag 2006;
Swedish Technology Teachers’ pedagogical strategies. Int J Technol Des Educ 27(4):12.
2022. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-022-09786-7. [37] Miao F, Holmes W, Huang R, Zhang H. AI and education: guidance for policy-
[6] Citrohn B, Stolpe K, Svensson M. The use of models and modelling in design makers. UNESCO; 2021.
projects in three different technology classrooms. Int J Technol Des Educ 2023;33: [38] COMEST. Preliminary study on the ethics of artificial intelligence. 2019.
63–90. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-022-09730-9. [39] OECD. Artificial intelligence in society. OECD Publishing; 2019. https://doi.org/
[7] Çetin M, Demircan HÖ. Empowering technology and engineering for STEM 10.1787/eedfee77-en.
education through programming robots: a systematic literature review. Early Child [40] Boden MA. AI: its nature and future. Oxford University Press; 2016.
Dev Care 2020;190(9):1323–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/ [41] Hermann E. Artificial intelligence and mass personalization of communication
03004430.2018.1534844. content—an ethical and literacy perspective. New Media Soc 2022;24(5):1258–77.
[8] Fanchamps NLJA, Slangen L, Hennissen P, Specht M. The influence of SRA [42] Akgun S, Greenhow C. Artificial intelligence in education: addressing ethical
programming on algorithmic thinking and self-efficacy using Lego robotics in two challenges in K-12 settings. AI Ethics 2022;2(3):431–40. https://doi.org/10.1007/
types of instruction. Int J Technol Des Educ 2019. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s43681-021-00096-7.
s10798-019-09559-9. [43] Wellner G, Rothman T. Feminist AI: can we expect our AI systems to become
[9] Hallström J, de Vries MJ, editors. Programming and computational thinking in feminist? Philos Technol 2020;33(2):191–205. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-
technology education: Swedish and international perspectives. Brill; 2024. 019-00352-z.
[10] Chu SKW, Reynolds RB, Tavares NJ, Notari M, Lee CWY. 21st century skills [44] Touretzky D, Martin F, Seehorn D, Breazeal C, Posner T. Special session: AI for K-12
development through inquiry-based learning from theory to practice. Springer; guidelines initiative. In: Proceedings of the 50th ACM technical symposium on
2021. computer science education; 2019.
[11] Chiu TK, Meng H, Chai C-S, King I, Wong S, Yam Y. Creation and evaluation of a [45] Lao N. Reorienting machine learning education towards tinkerers and ML-engaged
pretertiary artificial intelligence (AI) curriculum. IEEE Trans Educ 2021;65(1): citizens. MA, USA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge; 2020.
30–9. [46] Demiris G, Oliver DP, Washington KT. Behavioral intervention research in hospice
[12] Ng DTK, Leung JKL, Su MJ, Yim IHY, Qiao MS, Chu SKW. AI literacy in K-16 and palliative care: building an evidence base. Academic press; 2018.
classrooms. Springer; 2022. [47] Elo S, Kyngäs H. The qualitative content analysis process. J Adv Nurs 2008;62(1):
[13] UNESCO. K-12 AI curricula: a mapping of government-endorsed AI curricula. 107–15. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04569.x.
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization; 2022. [48] Slangen L, van Keulen H, Gravemeijer K. What pupils can learn from working with
[14] Brey P, Søraker JH. Philosophy of computing and information technology. robotic direct manipulation environments. Int J Technol Des Educ 2011;21(4):
Philosophy of Technology and Engineering Sciences. Elsevier; 2009. p. 1341–407. 449–69.
https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-51667-1.50051-3. [49] Ankiewicz P, De Swardt E, de Vries MJ. Some implications of the philosophy of
[15] Ihde D. Technology and the lifeworld: from garden to earth. Indiana university technology for Science, Technology and Society (STS) studies. Int J Technol Des
press; 1990. Educ 2006;16:117–41. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-005-3595-x.
[16] Long D, Magerko B. What is AI literacy? Competencies and design considerations. [50] Ropohl G. Knowledge types in technology. Int J Technol Des Educ 1997;7:65–72.
In: Proceedings of the 2020 CHI conference on human factors in computing https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008865104461.
systems; 2020. [51] Chiu TKF. The impact of Generative AI (GenAI) on practices, policies and research
[17] Touretzky D, Gardner-McCune C, Seehorn D. Machine learning and the five big direction in education: a case of ChatGPT and Midjourney. Interact Learn Environ
ideas in AI. Int J Artif Intell Educ 2022. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-022- 2023:1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2023.2253861.
00314-1. [52] Steele JL. To GPT or not GPT? Empowering our students to learn with AI. Comput
[18] Chiu TKF. A holistic approach to the design of Artificial Intelligence (AI) education Educ 2023;5:100160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2023.100160.
for K-12 schools. TechTrends 2021;65(5):796–807. https://doi.org/10.1007/ [53] Mauro N, Ardissono L, Cena F, Scarpinati L, Torta G. An intelligent support system
s11528-021-00637-1. to help teachers plan field trips. Int J Artif Intell Educ 2023. https://doi.org/
[19] Geist EM. It’s already too late to stop the AI arms race—we must manage it instead. 10.1007/s40593-023-00366-x.
Bull Atom Sci 2016;72(5):318–21. [54] Winner L. Do artifacts have politics? Daedalusm 1980;109(1):121–36.
[20] Rudolph JL. Scientific literacy: its real origin story and functional role in American [55] Axell C. Langdon Winner: a call for a critical philosophy of technology. In:
education. J Res Sci Teach 2023. Dakers JR, Hallström J, de Vries MJ, editors. Reflections on technology for
[21] ITEA. Standards for technological literacy. 3rd ed. International Technology educational practitioners. Brill; 2019. p. 131–46.
Education Association; 2007. [56] Winner L. The whale and the reactor: a search for limits in an age of high
[22] ITEEA.. Standards for technology and engineering literacy: the role of technology technology. University of Chicago Press; 2010.
and engineering in stem education. International Technology and Engineering
Educators Association; 2020.