Xingjian Gu

Xingjian Gu, Barbara J. Ericson

Even though AI literacy has emerged as a prominent education topic in the wake of generative AI, its definition remains vague. There is little consensus among researchers and practitioners on how to discuss and design AI literacy interventions. The term has been used to describe both learning activities that train undergraduate students to use ChatGPT effectively and having kindergarten children interact with social robots. This paper applies an integrative review method to examine empirical and theoretical AI literacy studies published since 2020. In synthesizing the 124 reviewed studies, three ways to conceptualize literacy-functional, critical, and indirectly beneficial-and three perspectives on AI-technical detail, tool, and sociocultural-were identified, forming a framework that reflects the spectrum of how AI literacy is approached in practice. The framework highlights the need for more specialized terms within AI literacy discourse and indicates research gaps in certain AI literacy objectives.

Aadarsh Padiyath, Xinying Hou, Amy Pang et al.

The capability of large language models (LLMs) to generate, debug, and explain code has sparked the interest of researchers and educators in undergraduate programming, with many anticipating their transformative potential in programming education. However, decisions about why and how to use LLMs in programming education may involve more than just the assessment of an LLM's technical capabilities. Using the social shaping of technology theory as a guiding framework, our study explores how students' social perceptions influence their own LLM usage. We then examine the correlation of self-reported LLM usage with students' self-efficacy and midterm performances in an undergraduate programming course. Triangulating data from an anonymous end-of-course student survey (n = 158), a mid-course self-efficacy survey (n=158), student interviews (n = 10), self-reported LLM usage on homework, and midterm performances, we discovered that students' use of LLMs was associated with their expectations for their future careers and their perceptions of peer usage. Additionally, early self-reported LLM usage in our context correlated with lower self-efficacy and lower midterm scores, while students' perceived over-reliance on LLMs, rather than their usage itself, correlated with decreased self-efficacy later in the course.