"Reading and writing are hard-won cognitive achievements, built upon years of explicit instruction and deliberate practice. They represent a profound transformation of the human mind; one that does not occur naturally but requires systematic teaching grounded in an understanding of how written language maps onto spoken language, how phonemes correspond to graphemes, how meaning is constructed through syntax and semantics." Thank you for saying this! Maryanne Wolf says it beautifully in her recent paper. See Maryanne Wolf Knows Her Proust and Her P.O.S.S.U.M. (https://harriettjanetos.substack.com/p/maryanne-wolf-knows-her-proust-and?r=5spuf)
Previous “literacies” are indeed part of this pattern. AIs impact is significant and unique. It is far beyond literacy in the reductive sense, and instead refers to the same cognitive and behavioral changes that occurred when we adjust from oral to written traditions.
I see this essay as preparing the foundation to distinguish that critical, nuanced position :)
Nice watch out. Am I missing something, how is “it’s other domains applied here” not the same fallacy as “we can teach critical thinking generally”? Doesn’t that point imply we need new knowledge for the AI context? Also, can we not be so academic when trying to help practitioners do better? Recognize that companies need momentum, even if it’s not perfectly designed. Many employees are at 0 and need help (not “mandatory” abstract courses they won’t apply, but a starting point, some scaffolding for volition + competence). I’ll happily take “stuff you should know about x” as a simple way to say the point. “If you want to do X or Y on the job, you gotta at least know Z. We’ll call that literate for now, refine it, and give a few ways to discern those who know it vs those who don’t. Self-test and don’t take training you don’t need. We’ll refine the approach, but start there.”It needn’t take a 6 month, PhD-approved process for a company of 50 people to just take an initial position on base fluency. I’m probably wrong but that seems like the suggested approach. This sounds out of touch with reality, in that it misses the point. Companies don’t care what the term literacy technically means and this argument persuades no one in the arena.
"And then there is “future-ready attitudes,” ... "What is a “future-ready attitude,” exactly? How would one teach it? How would one assess whether a student possesses it?"
This so reminds me of Englemann criticizing "productive disposition" in the Common Core math standards. Once you've reached this level of obscurity, it's game over before instruction has begun.
I love this. Critical thinking is dependent on domain experience. Although foundational education and rudimentary basics can hopefully scaffold what a person would need to engage intentionally on a specific domain, regardless of the knowledge they might have on it to start. A lot of ifs and assumptions there. I took an approach that's slightly less critical, but highlights what I think is a glaring omission: questioning AI in general - without curiosity and questioning and pausing to think about the situation. You're not going to have an understanding, aka literacy, in anything.
In two minds here. On the one hand, I totally agree that “AI literacy” has quickly become an empty, corporate buzzword. In too many spaces “literacy” has become a term boosters use to put an academic patina on the word “skills.” This trend irks me to no end.
That said, part of the reason it irks me is that there is a rich scholarly tradition behind the shift to literacies in the plural. Even if one is laser focused on approaches that help students develop expertise and competence in a domain, some of the richest research/practice exploring that right now is happening under the penumbra of disciplinary literacy. I bring that up to say, while we should be highly skeptical of buzzwords like “AI literacy”, a wholesale rejection of literacies in the plural is to jettison an entire constellation of research that is actually aligned with your purported goals.
Yes, indeedie, "AI literacy" is misbegotten. That little adjective, "AI," not only dilutes and debases "literacy," it tricks people into failing to examine the meaning of the noun that it modifies. In fact, I think we could fashion a reasonable argument that AI literacy is (a) not literacy (you nailed that one!), (b) not actually intelligent, and (c) not even artificial (nice work on this, one, too).
I just want my kids to have regular old literacy. Word literacy.
"Reading and writing are hard-won cognitive achievements, built upon years of explicit instruction and deliberate practice. They represent a profound transformation of the human mind; one that does not occur naturally but requires systematic teaching grounded in an understanding of how written language maps onto spoken language, how phonemes correspond to graphemes, how meaning is constructed through syntax and semantics." Thank you for saying this! Maryanne Wolf says it beautifully in her recent paper. See Maryanne Wolf Knows Her Proust and Her P.O.S.S.U.M. (https://harriettjanetos.substack.com/p/maryanne-wolf-knows-her-proust-and?r=5spuf)
Previous “literacies” are indeed part of this pattern. AIs impact is significant and unique. It is far beyond literacy in the reductive sense, and instead refers to the same cognitive and behavioral changes that occurred when we adjust from oral to written traditions.
I see this essay as preparing the foundation to distinguish that critical, nuanced position :)
And I don’t think I’m wrong!!
Hey man, there is truth in poetry!
It’s just not always the truth on the page.
I hear you, just not sure how it relates
The post is about how AI literacy is a poorly formed concept. But yeah power is an important consideration. Maybe the most important!
Nice watch out. Am I missing something, how is “it’s other domains applied here” not the same fallacy as “we can teach critical thinking generally”? Doesn’t that point imply we need new knowledge for the AI context? Also, can we not be so academic when trying to help practitioners do better? Recognize that companies need momentum, even if it’s not perfectly designed. Many employees are at 0 and need help (not “mandatory” abstract courses they won’t apply, but a starting point, some scaffolding for volition + competence). I’ll happily take “stuff you should know about x” as a simple way to say the point. “If you want to do X or Y on the job, you gotta at least know Z. We’ll call that literate for now, refine it, and give a few ways to discern those who know it vs those who don’t. Self-test and don’t take training you don’t need. We’ll refine the approach, but start there.”It needn’t take a 6 month, PhD-approved process for a company of 50 people to just take an initial position on base fluency. I’m probably wrong but that seems like the suggested approach. This sounds out of touch with reality, in that it misses the point. Companies don’t care what the term literacy technically means and this argument persuades no one in the arena.
"And then there is “future-ready attitudes,” ... "What is a “future-ready attitude,” exactly? How would one teach it? How would one assess whether a student possesses it?"
This so reminds me of Englemann criticizing "productive disposition" in the Common Core math standards. Once you've reached this level of obscurity, it's game over before instruction has begun.
Thank you for this.
I love this. Critical thinking is dependent on domain experience. Although foundational education and rudimentary basics can hopefully scaffold what a person would need to engage intentionally on a specific domain, regardless of the knowledge they might have on it to start. A lot of ifs and assumptions there. I took an approach that's slightly less critical, but highlights what I think is a glaring omission: questioning AI in general - without curiosity and questioning and pausing to think about the situation. You're not going to have an understanding, aka literacy, in anything.
https://hypandra.com/position-papers/questioning-ai
Perhaps AI literacy is just classical literacy, we are interacting with a common representation of language that can be molded by metaphors.
Brilliant. Will be adding this to my syllabus.
In two minds here. On the one hand, I totally agree that “AI literacy” has quickly become an empty, corporate buzzword. In too many spaces “literacy” has become a term boosters use to put an academic patina on the word “skills.” This trend irks me to no end.
That said, part of the reason it irks me is that there is a rich scholarly tradition behind the shift to literacies in the plural. Even if one is laser focused on approaches that help students develop expertise and competence in a domain, some of the richest research/practice exploring that right now is happening under the penumbra of disciplinary literacy. I bring that up to say, while we should be highly skeptical of buzzwords like “AI literacy”, a wholesale rejection of literacies in the plural is to jettison an entire constellation of research that is actually aligned with your purported goals.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00461520.2016.1168741
https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2016-18263-005
Yes, indeedie, "AI literacy" is misbegotten. That little adjective, "AI," not only dilutes and debases "literacy," it tricks people into failing to examine the meaning of the noun that it modifies. In fact, I think we could fashion a reasonable argument that AI literacy is (a) not literacy (you nailed that one!), (b) not actually intelligent, and (c) not even artificial (nice work on this, one, too).