Supporting AI Literacies for Young Adults Aged 14-19: A value-based, practical framework for public service media organisations

Synthesis: A commissioned report from the Responsible Innovation Centre for Public Media Futures (BBC R&D), BRAID and We Are Open Co-op argues that provision for 14–19-year-olds has tilted toward technical and functional AI skills and away from critical evaluation, and that public service media are unusually well placed to correct it. Its evidence is a landscape review of more than 40 AI literacy frameworks, 35 expert interviews and survey data collected between March and June 2025. The contribution is a framework of six competency areas (understanding AI systems and their contexts; practical and responsible use of tools; Creativity, agency and participation; confidence, adaptability and lifelong learning; critical evaluation of outputs and systems; and ethical, societal and environmental awareness) grounded in five values and paired with three progression levels — Understanding and Applying, Analysing and Evaluating, Synthesising and Specialising — plus an assessment guide and seven recommendations for public service media. The report is explicit that it is plural, not singular: AI literacies, connected to the digital, media and information literacies that preceded them.

Overview

AI literacy is now produced by technology companies, universities, policy bodies and civil society at once, and the report's diagnosis is that this has more to do with the actors than with the Learners. Industry frameworks tend to be close to product training, focused on practical skills and safety; institutional frameworks respond to mandates and employer pressure; policy frameworks (UNESCO, the OECD) aim for international comparability and can end up general; non-profit frameworks carry the social-justice concerns of access, bias and democratic participation.

Two consequences follow. First, the critical half of the field — judging outputs, recognising bias and persuasion, understanding systems and their environmental cost — is under-served relative to tool use, exactly where commercial incentives point away from. Second, AI literacy risks being detached from the critical traditions of digital, media and information literacy, duplicating work and losing the insight that literacies are social practices rather than a checklist of skills. Public service media, with a mandate for impartial provision, national reach and a history of media literacy work, are the institutions the report nominates to fill both gaps.

Key Findings

1. Current provision prioritises technical and functional skills over critical evaluation. The report's central finding is a shortage of resources that help young people judge AI systems and outputs — bias, misinformation, persuasion, accountability — against a surplus of material explaining how to use tools.
2. The field has no consensus framework, and no framework ready for public service media. More than 40 frameworks were reviewed and the report's own count of them varies between "40", "over 40" and "almost 40". It concludes that none could be adopted off the shelf by a public service media organization, and that the missing agreement extends to definitions, with "AI Literacy", "Digital Literacy" and "Media Literacy" often used interchangeably.
3. The framework has six competency areas. Understanding AI Systems and their Contexts; Practical and Responsible Use of AI Tools; Creativity, Agency, and Participation; Building Confidence, Adaptability, and Lifelong Learning; Critical Evaluation of AI Outputs and Systems; and Ethical, Societal, and Environmental Awareness.
4. It is grounded in five values. Human Agency and Informed Participation; Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion; Critical Thinking and Responsible Use; Creativity, Participation, and Lifelong Learning; and Upholding Human Rights and Wellbeing — each mapped to public service media values.
5. Progression is described in three levels, with an assessment guide. Understanding and Applying, Analysing and Evaluating, and Synthesising and Specialising are set out across the competency areas, giving the framework an evaluative half rather than a list of aspirations, alongside guidance on assessment practices.
6. Equity is treated as a delivery problem, not an aspiration. The report warns that AI literacy interventions will reach the already-advantaged unless they are designed otherwise, names young people who are digitally or otherwise marginalized as the group with fewest opportunities through formal education, and proposes targeted partnerships to reach them.
7. Seven recommendations target public service media specifically: embed AI literacies across learning content and platforms; support youth-driven content creation; strengthen teacher resources and training; develop interactive critical thinking tools; address ethical and emotional dimensions; lead cross-platform public engagement; and broaden inclusion through targeted partnerships.

What the evidence rests on

The methods are desk research plus expert judgment: an analysis of more than 40 AI literacy frameworks and resources, 35 interviews with named experts across education, media, policy and technology, and survey data, collected between March and June 2025. The report also draws on the commissioning organization's own research and educational work, and it states which frameworks substantively informed it — the Digital Education Council, Digital Promise, EDUCAUSE, the European Commission, the Good Things Foundation, the OECD, The Open University, Bali and UNESCO among them.

That evidence base supports claims about what provision exists and what experts believe is missing. It does not measure what any intervention does to a young person's competence. The framework and its progression levels are therefore a design proposal with an assessment guide attached, not a validated instrument, and the report is candid that the litmus test will be whether public service media commission work against it.

Where the framework sits in a crowded field

The report's most transferable idea is the argument for plural literacies. It adopts Angela Gunder's dimensional approach to AI literacies — civic, cognitive, confident, communicative and the rest — rather than a fixed competency list, which is how it manages to accommodate frameworks that disagree with each other. For anyone building a curriculum, the practical effect is that AI literacies are positioned as an extension of existing work in media and information literacy rather than a new subject to be added, and the report notes research finding that people are more willing to learn about AI when they already have basic digital and critical skills.

The institutional framing is what a reader should weigh. Public service media are described as faster than educational institutions at responding to youth culture, and better placed to offer impartial resources; the speed and impartiality claims are argued from the organizations' mandates rather than demonstrated with outcome data. The recommendations are consequently best read as a strategy for a commissioner choosing what to fund, not as evidence about what works in a classroom.

What this means for practice

• Fund the critical half, not more tool training. The gap the report identifies is judging AI systems and outputs — bias, misinformation, persuasion, ownership, environmental cost — so new material that explains how to prompt is unlikely to add much.
• Connect AI literacies to existing literacy work. Treat it as an extension of media, information and digital literacy programs rather than a standalone module, both to avoid duplication and because learners with basic digital and critical skills are the readier audience.
• Design for the learners least likely to arrive. Universal access to a national resource plus targeted partnerships is the report's answer to the risk that AI literacy reaches only the already-advantaged.
• Support teachers as a first-order requirement. Confidence and up-to-date material are named as shortages, so curriculum-linked resources and professional development belong in any plan rather than being treated as a dissemination step.
• Use progression levels to design and evaluate, not attendance counts. The three levels and the assessment guidance give providers a way to describe movement within a competency area instead of reporting that a workshop ran.

Limitations

• A commissioned report, not peer-reviewed research. It is published by organizations with a stake in the argument that public service media should lead this work, and its recommendations follow from that premise.
• The evidence is desk research and expert opinion. A landscape review of 40-plus frameworks, 35 interviews and survey data establish what provision exists and what experts think is missing; no learner outcome data are reported, and the framework itself has not been evaluated in use.
• The framework is a proposal with an assessment guide, not a validated instrument. The progression levels are presented as a way to describe development; there is no reliability or validity evidence for them.
• Scope and count limits. The frameworks reviewed are English-language and concentrated in the United States, United Kingdom, Australia and Europe, the focus is UK 14–19-year-olds and public service media in particular, and the report's own count of frameworks reviewed varies between "40", "over 40" and "almost 40".

Connected Concepts

AI Literacy, Critical Thinking, Critical Pedagogy, Equity, Digital Divide, Curriculum Design, Learning Design, Inclusive Learning, Educational AI Policy, Creativity, Lifelong Learning, Generative AI

Connected Articles

• Beyond Tool Adoption: A Practical Five-Stage Developmental Continuum for AI Literacy in Higher Education — Beyond Tool Adoption: A Practical Five-Stage Developmental Continuum for AI Literacy in Higher Education
• From AI Intuition to AI Literacy: A Dual Framework for K-12 Education — From AI Intuition to AI Literacy: A Dual Framework for K-12 Education
• Agentic Literacy Debt: A Structural Problem the AI Literacy Field Has Not Yet Named — Agentic Literacy Debt: A Structural Problem the AI Literacy Field Has Not Yet Named
• How to Assess AI Literacy: Misalignment Between Self-Reported and Objective-Based Measures — How to Assess AI Literacy: Misalignment Between Self-Reported and Objective-Based Measures
• Assessing teachers' AI literacy: a systematic review of measurement tools — Assessing teachers' AI literacy: a systematic review of measurement tools

Citation

Belshaw, D., Hilliger, L., & Jones, R. (2025). Supporting AI Literacies for Young Adults Aged 14-19: A value-based, practical framework for public service media organisations. Responsible Innovation Centre for Public Media Futures (BBC R&D), BRAID, and We Are Open Co-op.