Could AI literacy be the next functional skill?

By Dr Marcin Lewandowski, Teacher Educator at HRUC

Over the years, FE has embedded a number of skills and competencies into the curriculum - from English, mathematics and ESOL to digital skills, sustainability and employability. Yet another skill may soon become equally important: AI literacy.
AI is already reshaping educational practices, expectations and behaviours at every level of the institution. Senior leaders must consider its strategic implications for the organisation, workforce and learners; managers are required to develop policies and guidance; while teachers and students grapple with the practical realities of its everyday use.

Many students are increasingly using AI to answer questions and complete assignments, sometimes enthusiastically and uncritically. In some cases, learners may rely on AI-generated responses without fully understanding the concepts or even the question itself. 
Teachers, meanwhile, are increasingly challenged to assess genuine understanding and prepare students for situations in which AI assistance will not be available, such as formal examinations. As a result, the sector’s ability to adapt effectively to AI may have a significant and measurable impact on learner outcomes and future readiness.
But what does it mean to be AI literate? 

After the Covid pandemic which placed entire countries into lockdowns and changed the way we worked, communicated and learned for an extended period of time, AI is perhaps one of the greatest disruptors of our time, likely with even longer term implications. Whether we like it or not, AI is here to stay, and our students are already using it. This is why it is important that we start to think proactively about how it can be used effectively not only to support our students’ learning but also to prepare them for the rapidly changing world of work. 

However, it is important that we exercise caution in the deployment of AI. The introduction of computers into classrooms, despite the initial furore, may not have been as beneficial as we had anticipated. The initial arguments that learners must develop skills for the 21st century were as convincing as they were justified. Unquestionably, a large proportion of jobs and professions do require the use of computers and IT technology, and so, it stands to reason that we need to develop the skills to use them. 
Yet, there is also growing evidence that the introduction of IT equipment such as computers and laptops may have had a detrimental effect not only on learning but may have also contributed to the decline in IQ scores of the current generation (Hendrick, 2026). There are several reasons why this could be the case. 

Introduction of computers and tablets may have incentivised teachers to use them to e.g. promote independent study (a computer-student relationship) at the expense of teacher-student relationships. This is consequential because the teacher-student interactions coupled with affective empathy such human to human contacts promote produces an outsized effect in educational research (Hendrick, 2026). PCs and tablet computers may have also increased the screen time at a time when students were already spending an excessive amount of time online consuming rapid-fire media (ibid) which was slowly but surely degrading their attention spans with negative consequences on learning (Rogelberg, 2026; Cardoso-Leite,et. al. 2021). Finally, using computers in a classroom, say for project work, may not have benefitted all students equally. Students with secure subject knowledge likely benefitted more due to their ability to process information more effectively compared to the less secure students thus widening the equity gap between them (Ahn, 2022). 

As we are moving towards greater integration of AI systems in our education, it is important that we keep the lessons above in mind. On the one hand, just as the embedding of digital and IT skills has been important in preparing students to function and thrive in an increasingly digitised world, the thoughtful integration of AI could enhance learning while also helping students to apply and practise transferable skills such as critical thinking, evaluation and problem solving, all of which are likely to become increasingly important in future employment contexts. 

Yet, it is not difficult to see how AI enhanced devices such as PCs and, increasingly, mobile devices may not only reproduce some of these problems but also amplify them. Take critical thinking, for example. In response to the emerging skills gap, colleges could be tempted to encourage teachers to ‘embed AI skills’ in their lessons. To achieve this students could be asked to do project work. In the past this would involve using a search engine such as Google to research the topic and work collaboratively to identify and use the most relevant information. Students would have to use critical thinking skills to determine which information is relevant. AI makes this process even easier. Instead of researching information online they can now use an AI chatbot to answer the questions for them. They still need to use their critical thinking skills to determine whether the information provided is correct. 

One could argue that in both cases students are developing their critical thinking skills. However, the problem with this approach is that critical thinking skills cannot be developed in a vacuum. In order to evaluate or assess any text or information critically students need to possess knowledge with which to do so. Therefore, building knowledge must precede any tasks that may rely on it. AI not only removes the friction that is required for learning but also creates an illusion of learning. Adopting AI prematurely risks the very foundations on which skills such as critical thinking, problem solving or effective communication are built. 

This brings us back to where we started - what is AI literacy and what does it mean to be AI literate? I started the article with a premise that many students and teachers have already used it to carry out tasks related to their studies or work. Does this make us AI literate? This depends on how we define AI literacy.

A recent government review makes a distinction between AI literacy which it defines as the competencies to understand, evaluate and use AI systems, and AI skills which refer to the technical abilities linked to those competencies (Procter, 2026). The report argues that both are necessary to effectively engage with AI systems. For example, critical evaluation (a competency) requires the ability to fact-check outputs or identify hallucinations which goes beyond the ability to write prompts (skill) I alluded to above. 
This also means that teaching AI literacy requires us to think carefully about the competencies we want students to develop, rather than simply the technical skills they need to operate AI tools. In educational settings, teachers will therefore need to draw on their pedagogical knowledge to determine when AI should be embedded, how it should be used and, crucially, why.

To facilitate the successful adoption of AI, it will be important for institutions to establish an environment in which teachers feel confident developing and applying the necessary technical and pedagogical skills. To some extent, this process has already begun organically. Many teachers have used AI to develop teaching resources and may have had to respond to students submitting AI-generated homework. Some may even have used AI to assess their students’ work. However, this adoption is far from uniform. In my experience, the quality of AI-generated materials varies greatly and some teachers lack either the skills, confidence, or both to allow the use of AI in their classrooms. 

To ensure consistent implementation of AI, it is important that teachers possess the technical and pedagogical competence required to use it safely, effectively and responsibly. This could be achieved through a combination of top-down and bottom-up approaches. For example, at an organisational (top down) level, this could include the provision of an AI policy and clear guidelines vis-a-vis when it is appropriate to use AI, what effective use of AI in the classroom entails, i.e. what it might look like, the use of phones in the classroom, etc. Many of these decisions would have to be made in consultation with awarding bodies who would advise on what is and isn’t acceptable from an assessment point of view. Tools and resources including licenses would have to be made available for teachers along with professional development and training on how to use them tailored to the specific needs and requirements of different curriculum areas. Organisations would also have to find ways to promote and support bottom-up processes and establish an environment which could empower and support teachers to experiment with different approaches and share their findings with colleagues to improve their practice.  

It is also important that the use of AI in the classroom (and beyond) should not replace a solid teaching (and learning) of subject knowledge but complement it instead. The adage ‘pedagogy before technology’ is as pertinent here as ever. Students will be more inclined to use AI to deepen their knowledge when they are interested in what they are learning. This can only be achieved by teachers who can use their ‘human’ skills to enthuse and inspire their students. Building knowledge is more important than ever, now that students can effortlessly produce assignments with a single prompt. The adage above could be updated to ‘knowledge before AI’.  Students’ ability to benefit from AI will depend heavily on their existing schema and conceptual understanding of the subject area. Without secure prior knowledge, learners may struggle to evaluate AI output effectively, increasing the risk of cognitive overload, misunderstanding or superficial copying. 

As with any educational source, the value of AI depends on the learner’s readiness to engage with it critically and purposefully. There are a number of ways this could be achieved. For example, rather than using AI simply to generate answers, learners should be encouraged to use it as a tool for dialogue, feedback, clarification and reflection. AI can function as a form of scaffolded support, simulating some aspects of a “More Knowledgeable Other”, allowing learners to engage in meaningful conversations about their learning, check understanding and request feedback. This use would need to operate within clearly defined parameters. For example, students could be required to produce all initial work independently before submitting prompts to AI systems. Drafts could then be revised in response to AI-generated feedback and suggestions, with both the original and final versions submitted for review. This would have to take place in a classroom under supervised conditions where teachers are at hand to model, monitor and provide support where required. Effective implementation would require training for both teachers and students, particularly in relation to prompt construction, critical evaluation of AI responses and appropriate use of feedback.

In a recent conversation I had with my daughter about AI, she reminded me of a session I delivered in her school many years ago. In it, I presented children with a scenario: they could choose to eat a magic piece of chocolate which would make them instantly brilliant at everything. While some of them chose to eat it, most declined it, recognising the value of hard work and the satisfaction we derive from a job well done. She pointed out that AI is the magic piece of chocolate. 

AI will inevitably continue to disrupt and change how we live, work, and learn. Many of us already use it to draft emails, generate ideas, plan trips or create learning materials. However, as we continue to integrate AI into our professional and personal lives, we have to be mindful of what we risk losing along the way. Solving complex problems or passing a difficult text feels satisfying precisely because of the time and effort required. The work we put into an activity makes it more meaningful and rewarding. With the help of AI, we can remove this friction in a second. But that does not mean that we should. AI can enhance our lives but also deprive us of the fulfillment only striving can bring. AI is indeed the magic piece of chocolate. The choice of when and how we use it is ours.

References: 
Ahn, J. (2022). Exploring the negative and gap-widening effects of EdTech on young children’s learning achievement: Evidence from a longitudinal dataset of children in American K–3 classrooms. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(9), 5430. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19095430
Cardoso-Leite, P., Buchard, A., Tissieres, I., Mussack, D., & Bavelier, D. (2021). Media use, attention, mental health and academic performance among 8 to 12 year old children. PloS one, 16(11), e0259163. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0259163
Hendrick, C. (2026). “A Latter-Day Luddite Pulls the Plug on EdTech: New book argues it’s not the tools we use but the values we hold that make the difference in education.” Education Next, 26(1), 10 February 2026.
Procter, R. (2026) AI Skills for Life and Work: Rapid Evidence Review. London: Department for Science, Innovation and Technology. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/ai-skills-for-life-and-work-rapid-evidence-review/ai-skills-for-life-and-work-rapid-evidence-review (Accessed: 23 July 2026).
Rogelberg, S. (2026) 'The U.S. spent $30 billion to ditch textbooks for laptops and tablets: The result is the first generation less cognitively capable than their parents', Fortune, 21 February. Available at: https://fortune.com/article/how-did-us-spending-30-billion-dollars-on-laptops-result-in-first-generation-less-cognitively-capable-than-parents/ (Accessed: 24 July 2026).