Decoding the Disciplines - User contributions [en]

AI Literacy as a bottle neck

2025-06-17T10:22:51Z

Siobhan McPhee:

'''Decoding AI Literacy:''' Teaching Students to Think Critically About Their AI Use. This is not about whether or not we should be using AI but rather to think through how it's use must be a critical reflective process both for '''educators''' and for students.

= Content =

* 1 Description of bottleneck
* 2 Description of mental tasks needed to overcome the bottleneck
* 3 Related scholarly work on this bottleneck
* 4 People interested in this bottleneck
* 5 Available resources
* 6 References

== '''1. Why AI Literacy is a Bottleneck''' ==
Students use AI tools in their coursework without critically examining their purpose, process, or implications of that use. They treat AI as an invisible tool rather than a choice requiring reflection. To frame it as an analogy, we are driving on a highway and we as teachers/educators/instructors see the AI exit but struggle to get to the exit, but with our students they don't even see the exit.

'''More Specific''': Students default to using AI tools for assignments without considering: (1) whether AI is appropriate for the task, (2) how AI might be shaping their thinking, (3) what they might be missing by relying on AI, or (4) the ethical implications of their AI use

== '''2. Description of mental tasks needed to overcome the bottleneck''' ==

==== '''Uncovering the Mental Move''' ====
To decode the expert mental moves, let us reword the bottleneck as a question: "How does one move from unconscious AI use to deliberate, critical engagement with AI tools?"

==== '''Expert Mental Moves When Using AI''' ====

===== Through the bottleneck writing tour method, we can identify what experts do differently =====
# '''Purpose Pause''': Before using AI, experts stop to ask "What am I trying to accomplish and is AI the right tool?"
# '''Process Awareness''': Experts consciously craft prompts, iterate, and document their interaction
# '''Output Evaluation''': Experts don't accept AI output wholesale but evaluate, verify, and integrate it with their own knowledge
# '''Reflection Habit''': Experts consider what they learned from the process versus what the AI provided
# '''Ethical Consideration''': Experts think about citation, transparency, and the appropriateness of AI use for each context

===== '''Using AI to Decode This Bottleneck -''' ''AI can help us decode our own expert thinking about AI use'' =====

====== '''We can:''' ======

* Use AI as an interviewing partner to probe your unconscious assumptions (maybe need a separate entry here or link to interview process in Decoding?)
** '''Example prompt for self-decoding''': "I'm trying to understand what I do automatically when I decide whether to use AI for a task. Can you interview me about a recent decision I made to use or not use AI, probing for assumptions I might not realize I'm making?"

* Ask AI to challenge your thinking about when AI use is appropriate
* Have AI generate scenarios that reveal hidden aspects of critical AI use

== '''3. Modeling the Mental Move''' ==

=== '''The "AI Decision Tree" Metaphor''' ===
Back to our highway metaphor in the 'Why AI is a Bottleneck?' section: if we view AI use as a series of conscious forks in the road:

* Each exit represents a choice about whether and how to use AI
* Missing the exit means proceeding without thinking
* Taking the exit requires slowing down and making deliberate decisions

=== '''Modeling Exercises:''' ===
'''1. Think-Aloud AI Use'''

Demonstrate your decision-making process for a real task:

* "I need to write a paper draft introduction on ..."
* "I could use AI to generate a first draft, but what would I miss?"
* "Let me consider: What unique knowledge do I have that AI doesn't?"
* "I'll use AI to check my logic flow, but write the content myself because..."

'''2. The "AI Interaction Journal"'''

Model keeping a record of:

* Why you chose to use/not use AI
* What prompts you tried and why you revised them
* How you evaluated the output
* What you kept, changed, or rejected and why

== '''4. Practice and Feedback''' ==

=== '''Practice Sequence''' ===
'''How can we create scaffolded opportunities for students to practice critical AI engagement. This practice sequence can be used for educators/instructors in their own critical AI thinking'''

==== '''Week 1: Recognition Practice''' ====

* Students identify AI use in their daily academic life
* Document one unconscious AI use and reflect on it
* Share in pairs: "I didn't realize I was using AI when..."

==== '''Week 2: Decision Point Practice''' ====

* Give students identical tasks
* Half use AI, half don't
* Compare processes and outcomes, focusing on what each approach revealed

'''Week 3: Critical Prompt Development'''

* Students develop prompts for the same task
* Analyze how different prompts lead to different outputs
* Reflect on what this reveals about AI as a tool

'''Week 4: Integration Practice'''

* Complete a full assignment with documented AI decision points
* Create an "AI use statement" explaining choices
* Peer review focusing on critical thinking about AI use

AI literacy represents a fundamental conceptual threshold for students:

# '''Access and Leverage Research Methods''': Without understanding AI fundamentals, students cannot effectively utilize increasingly AI-dependent research tools and methodologies.
# '''Critically Analyze Contemporary Social Phenomena''': Many social interactions, inequalities, and power structures are now mediated through AI systems. Without literacy in this area, students lack the conceptual framework to properly analyze these phenomena. So, AI’s link to disinformation and being critical of media sources.

'''Key Bottleneck Areas'''

'''1. Methodological Understanding'''

Students who don't grasp basic AI literacy will struggle to:

* Design research that accounts for algorithmic bias
* Properly interpret AI-assisted data analysis
* Evaluate the validity of AI-enhanced research methods

'''2. Theoretical Application'''

Limited AI literacy impedes students' ability to:

* Apply existing social theories to algorithmic systems
* Develop new theoretical frameworks that incorporate AI's social impacts
* Connect traditional geographic (social science) concepts to emerging technological realities

'''3. Ethical Reasoning'''

Without AI literacy, students cannot:

* Effectively assess ethical implications of AI deployment in social contexts
* Develop frameworks for responsible AI use in social science research
* Navigate complex issues of consent, privacy, and agency in algorithmic environments

'''Pedagogical Implications'''

# '''Threshold Concept Teaching''': Design curriculum to explicitly address AI literacy as a threshold concept that transforms how students understand social phenomena
# '''Scaffolded Learning''': Build progressive understanding from basic algorithmic concepts to complex socio-technical analysis
# '''Interdisciplinary Integration''': Incorporate AI literacy across courses rather than isolating it to "tech" modules
# '''Practical Application''': Provide hands-on experience with AI tools to overcome conceptual barriers through practice

Suggestions;

Give specific examples

Have a do and do not

AI Literacy as a bottle neck

2025-06-17T09:59:43Z

Siobhan McPhee:

AI Literacy as a bottle neck

2025-04-24T15:53:38Z

Siobhan McPhee:

'''AI Literacy as a Bottleneck Concept for Geography (Social Science more broadly) Students'''

'''Why AI Literacy Functions as a Bottleneck'''

AI literacy represents a fundamental conceptual threshold for students:

# '''Access and Leverage Research Methods''': Without understanding AI fundamentals, students cannot effectively utilize increasingly AI-dependent research tools and methodologies.
# '''Critically Analyze Contemporary Social Phenomena''': Many social interactions, inequalities, and power structures are now mediated through AI systems. Without literacy in this area, students lack the conceptual framework to properly analyze these phenomena. So, AI’s link to disinformation and being critical of media sources.

'''Key Bottleneck Areas'''

'''1. Methodological Understanding'''

Students who don't grasp basic AI literacy will struggle to:

* Design research that accounts for algorithmic bias
* Properly interpret AI-assisted data analysis
* Evaluate the validity of AI-enhanced research methods

'''2. Theoretical Application'''

Limited AI literacy impedes students' ability to:

* Apply existing social theories to algorithmic systems
* Develop new theoretical frameworks that incorporate AI's social impacts
* Connect traditional geographic (social science) concepts to emerging technological realities

'''3. Ethical Reasoning'''

Without AI literacy, students cannot:

* Effectively assess ethical implications of AI deployment in social contexts
* Develop frameworks for responsible AI use in social science research
* Navigate complex issues of consent, privacy, and agency in algorithmic environments

'''Pedagogical Implications'''

# '''Threshold Concept Teaching''': Design curriculum to explicitly address AI literacy as a threshold concept that transforms how students understand social phenomena
# '''Scaffolded Learning''': Build progressive understanding from basic algorithmic concepts to complex socio-technical analysis
# '''Interdisciplinary Integration''': Incorporate AI literacy across courses rather than isolating it to "tech" modules
# '''Practical Application''': Provide hands-on experience with AI tools to overcome conceptual barriers through practice

Suggestions;

Give specific examples

Have a do and do not

Pages needed

2025-04-24T15:40:38Z

Siobhan McPhee: Added link to AI literacy

{| class="wikitable"
|+
!Topic
!People willing to contribute
!Details
!Status
|-
|[[Limits]]
|[[User:Riegler|Peter Riegler]]
|uploading parts 4 and 5 of interview
|
|-
|<s>Language comprehension</s>
|[[User:Riegler|<s>Peter Riegler</s>]]
|<s>Summarizing the decoding work descriped in [[Lost in Language Comprehension: Decoding putatively extra-disciplinary expertise]]</s>
|done -> [[Textual descriptions in mathematics]]
|-
|[[The Decoding Clock Reading Activity|<s>The Decoding Clock Reading Activity</s>]]
|[[User:Riegler|<s>Peter Riegler</s>]]
|<s>describe mental tasks</s>
|done -> [[Reading a clock]]
|-
|Transition to College project
|
|describe the project, results etc.
|
|-
|Trading analogies
|
|
|
|-
|[[Bottleneck]]
|
|describe flavors of bottlenecks
|
|-
|[[Threshold concept]]
|
|describe relationship to bottlenecks and Decoding
|
|-
|Transformative Dialogues
|
|describe role of journal, link to journal, etc.
|
|-
|Graph reading
|
|Sort of a review article summarizing research work on this topic
|
|-
|Reading scholarly work
|
|Sort of a review article summarizing research work on this topic
|
|-
|[[Faculty development]]
|[[Peter Riegler]] (appreciating a helpful hand in particular when it comes to FLP etc.)
|describe how Decoding is used for faculty development; give some history (e.g. FLP); link to relevant Decoding literature
|started
|-
|[[AI Literacy as a bottle neck]]
|
|As an aspect of digital literacy and being critical users of digital tools, it is important to address AI literacy as an bottleneck for social science students
|
|}
See also [[Special:WantedPages]] for further pages needed.

AI Literacy as a bottle neck

2025-04-24T15:39:06Z

Siobhan McPhee: Created new page

Pages needed

2025-04-23T21:36:45Z

Siobhan McPhee: Added a row

{| class="wikitable"
|+
!Topic
!People willing to contribute
!Details
!Status
|-
|[[Limits]]
|[[User:Riegler|Peter Riegler]]
|uploading parts 4 and 5 of interview
|
|-
|<s>Language comprehension</s>
|[[User:Riegler|<s>Peter Riegler</s>]]
|<s>Summarizing the decoding work descriped in [[Lost in Language Comprehension: Decoding putatively extra-disciplinary expertise]]</s>
|done -> [[Textual descriptions in mathematics]]
|-
|[[The Decoding Clock Reading Activity|<s>The Decoding Clock Reading Activity</s>]]
|[[User:Riegler|<s>Peter Riegler</s>]]
|<s>describe mental tasks</s>
|done -> [[Reading a clock]]
|-
|Transition to College project
|
|describe the project, results etc.
|
|-
|Trading analogies
|
|
|
|-
|[[Bottleneck]]
|
|describe flavors of bottlenecks
|
|-
|[[Threshold concept]]
|
|describe relationship to bottlenecks and Decoding
|
|-
|Transformative Dialogues
|
|describe role of journal, link to journal, etc.
|
|-
|Graph reading
|
|Sort of a review article summarizing research work on this topic
|
|-
|Reading scholarly work
|
|Sort of a review article summarizing research work on this topic
|
|-
|[[Faculty development]]
|[[Peter Riegler]] (appreciating a helpful hand in particular when it comes to FLP etc.)
|describe how Decoding is used for faculty development; give some history (e.g. FLP); link to relevant Decoding literature
|started
|-
|AI Literacy as a bottle neck
|
|As an aspect of digital literacy and being critical users of digital tools, it is important to address AI literacy as an bottleneck for social science students
|
|}
See also [[Special:WantedPages]] for further pages needed.

User:Siobhán Wittig McPhee

2025-04-23T21:33:56Z

Siobhan McPhee: Added in what I would like to write on

What will this writing group make meaningful for you?

I have reading about 'Decoding and Disrupting the Disciplines' for a number of years but only recently had the opportunity to formally engage with the group. I am a Geographer and the discipline is quite 'fluid' in the sense that we include scientists, social scientists and humanities scholars. This also means that there is often a challenge in how to approach 'bottleneck' concepts. I find it most helpful to work with others outside Geography.

I have been involved with four other writing groups so far: one specifically Geography, two were I was a participant in the ISSoTL writing group and one where I was the facilitator. I found all of the experiences extremity rich and I learned a lot about the topics based on different peoples' disciplinary perspectives. What I also learned though was a lot of skills of collaborating across different institutions, time zones and pedagogical innovation. Being an academic can often be a lonely road and I find the collaborative writing groups to be an incredibly collaborative and supportive spaces.

What I would like to write about:

'''AI Literacy as a Bottleneck Concept for Geography (Social Science more broadly) Students'''

'''Why AI Literacy Functions as a Bottleneck'''

AI literacy represents a fundamental conceptual threshold for students:

# '''Access and Leverage Research Methods''': Without understanding AI fundamentals, students cannot effectively utilize increasingly AI-dependent research tools and methodologies.
# '''Critically Analyze Contemporary Social Phenomena''': Many social interactions, inequalities, and power structures are now mediated through AI systems. Without literacy in this area, students lack the conceptual framework to properly analyze these phenomena. So, AI’s link to disinformation and being critical of media sources.

'''Key Bottleneck Areas'''

'''1. Methodological Understanding'''

Students who don't grasp basic AI literacy will struggle to:

* Design research that accounts for algorithmic bias
* Properly interpret AI-assisted data analysis
* Evaluate the validity of AI-enhanced research methods

'''2. Theoretical Application'''

Limited AI literacy impedes students' ability to:

* Apply existing social theories to algorithmic systems
* Develop new theoretical frameworks that incorporate AI's social impacts
* Connect traditional geographic (social science) concepts to emerging technological realities

'''3. Ethical Reasoning'''

Without AI literacy, students cannot:

* Effectively assess ethical implications of AI deployment in social contexts
* Develop frameworks for responsible AI use in social science research
* Navigate complex issues of consent, privacy, and agency in algorithmic environments

'''Pedagogical Implications'''

# '''Threshold Concept Teaching''': Design curriculum to explicitly address AI literacy as a threshold concept that transforms how students understand social phenomena
# '''Scaffolded Learning''': Build progressive understanding from basic algorithmic concepts to complex socio-technical analysis
# '''Interdisciplinary Integration''': Incorporate AI literacy across courses rather than isolating it to "tech" modules
# '''Practical Application''': Provide hands-on experience with AI tools to overcome conceptual barriers through practice

User:Riegler/EuroSoTL 2025 Collaborative Writing Group

2025-03-05T17:06:24Z

Siobhan McPhee:

The '''EuroSoTL 2025 Collaborative Writing Group (ESCWG)''' on [[Decoding the Disciplines|Decoding]] and [[Disrupting the Disciplines|Disrupting]] aims at making Decoding and Disrupting work more accessible to a broader audience. It does so primarily (but not necessarily exclusively) by contributing content to this wiki. Besides it is intended to be a meaningful experience for all participants.

The ESCWG is one of [https://eurosotl.org/?page_id=1443 six writing groups] organized by [https://www.rug.nl/about-ug/organization/service-departments/teaching-academy-groningen/activities/eurosotl-2025/?lang=en EuroSoTL 2025].

==Suggested writing==
The ESCWG on Decoding is pretty much open to all sorts of media and outlets (as long as it serves the overall goal of making Decoding work more accessible). A working plan will be drafted at the inaugural online-meeting. It should be open for adjustment.

The group of people who have planned this ESCWG has the following type of writing content in mind:

===Wiki content===

*Pages describing specific bottlenecks, such as e.g. [[Difference between sample and population]]. (For this type of pages a suitable degree of conciseness needs to be agreed on. The thinkable spectrum ranges from super concise as in [[Heat, temperature and internal energy]] to very detailed as in the Bottleneck Section of [[Limits]].)
*Pages featuring specific work (published or unpublished). Most likely, the best current exemplars of such a page are [[Group activities in interactive teaching]] and [[Limits]].
*Pages explaining Decoding and Disrupting concepts and jargon, e.g. [[Step 3 - Modeling Mental Operations]], [[Emotional Bottleneck]].
It might be helpful if we have examplar pages for all this content categories.

===Journal articles===
It is expected that while working on the wiki "a view of the landscape of Decoding" will emerge. This might lead to the idea of jointly writing a review article. A likely topic might be "reading across the disciplines" as much Decoding work is on reading academic artifacts (text, graphs).

=== Suggestions for getting started writing activities ===
* Describe a bottleneck of your choice or contribute to one of the [[:Category:Bottleneck|exisiting bottleneck description pages]].
* Improve [[Special:AllPages|exisiting pages]]. Candidates in need are
** [[Step 1 - Identify a Bottleneck to Learning]]
** [[Step 2 - Decoding Interview]]
** [[Step 3 - Modeling Mental Operations]]
** [[Step 4: Give Students Practice and Feedback]]
** [[Step 5 - Motivate and lessen resistance]]
** [[Step 6 - Assess Student Mastery]]
** [[Step 7 - Share What Has Been Learned Through the Decoding Process]]
*Adopt a writing project suggested on [[Pages needed]].
==Participants==
The ESCWG is a collaborative effort of

*[[User:Danielle Thibodeau|Danielle]]
*[[User:Dpace|David]]
*[[User:Inna Mikhailova|Inna]]
*[[User:Joan Middendorf|Joan]]
*[[User:Maire Gorman|Maire]]
*[[User:Michelle Yeo|Michelle]]
*[[User:JuniusWilkes|Peter D.]]
*[[User:Riegler|Peter R.]]
*[[User:Siobhán Rachel McPhee|Siobhán]]

A [https://padlet.com/winedge/escwg-2025-yq459f6jzk074i6m padlet] provides a list of all participants of all writing groups.

==Meetings ==

===Inaugural online-meeting===
March 5th, 2025, 16:00 GMT

Agenda:

*(Peter R needs to leave at 17:15 GMT today; will be in Groningen Jun 15-20, staying at The Happy Traveller)
*Aims of this group
*Short individual intros
*Testing technology / writing prompt: "What will this writing group make meaningful for you?"
** Go to your user page, e.g. by clicking on your name in the [[User:Riegler/EuroSoTL 2025 Collaborative Writing Group#Participants|participants list]].
** Create it on the fly if necessary bychoosing one of the following templates: Empty page, Person interested in Decoding.
** Start writing.
* Getting to know each other
* Information from the ESCWG organizers (motto: The time is write):
**Work will be presented at EuroSoTL 2027. Plus: Our working group will have a poster.
**Participants are expected to attend EuroSoTL 2025. Registration is now open.
**(Regular) postings on social media are welcome. (Anybody fluent in that?)->We need a common hash tag.
**Button for writing group members?
**What do you need to come to Groningen?
**Some of us will get interviewed by organizers.
*Dates and schedule; identifying dates for online writing sessions
* Writing prompt: "What I will do next"

===Online writing sessions===
suggestion:

*2-3 x 2-3 hours on block prior to EuroSoTL
* e.g. one in March, April, May

===Informal check-ins===
We can have regular informal check-in meetings for those who want to talk about their writing projects, need technical help etc. At the following dates Peter R. will be available for an hour or so:

*Fri Mar 7, 16:00 GMT
*Tue Mar 11, 19:00 GMT
*Wed Mar 19, 16:00 GMT
*Thu Mar 27, 17:00 GMT
*Sat Apr 5, 15:00 GMT

These dates are scattered over the days of the week on purpose in the hope that at least some dates match with the individual schedules of the group members. Zoom link will be send around per email.

===Collaborative writing session prior to [https://www.rug.nl/about-ug/organization/service-departments/teaching-academy-groningen/activities/eurosotl-2025/?lang=en EuroSoTL 2025]===
June 17th, 2025 in Groningen
{| class="wikitable"
|'''Time'''
|'''Programme'''
|-
|8.30 a.m. - 9.30 a.m.
|Arrival & welcome
|-
|9.30 a.m. - 12.00 noon
|Writing groups - morning session
|-
|12.00 noon - 1.00 p.m.
|Lunch
|-
|1.00 p.m. - 5.00 p.m.
|Writing groups - afternoon session
|}

===Dinner on June 16th===
Here is the info by the ESCWG organizers:

<blockquote>We are keen to have a meal out on the 16th June prior to the start of the in-person writing day on the 17th. Svenne has kindly helped to source a restaurant which caters to a range of tastes and eating options at affordable prices. The details are below and we would welcome your support in asking your group about how many would be joining us for the meal. This would be a self-paid dinner and an opportunity for delegates to meet one another in an informal and welcoming way.

Pizza at Napoli Groningen seems to be the cheapest option. Most pizzas are prices between 14 and 19 euros. There are lots of options available, so I think we can accommodate all dietary preferences. The menu includes vegetarian options, vegan options (surplus 1,50 euro) and gluten free option (surplus 2,50 for pizza and surplus 1,50 for pasta)."</blockquote>

Please enter your name (by March 6th), if you plan to join:
*[[User:Riegler|Riegler]] ([[User talk:Riegler|talk]]) 09:11, 5 March 2025 (CET
*Siobhán Wittig McPhee

User:Siobhán Wittig McPhee

2025-03-05T16:40:15Z

Siobhan McPhee:

User:Siobhán Wittig McPhee

2025-03-05T16:31:22Z

Siobhan McPhee: I answered the question provided