The (im)possibility of AI literacy

Synthesis: Pangrazio (2026) offers a critical editorial questioning whether AI literacy is a meaningful or even achievable goal. Tracing the history of literacy from its elite origins through mass institutionalization, she argues that AI literacy has been positioned as a "cure-all" — a solutionist, normative response to the complex and evolving phenomenon of AI. The analysis asks what "text" AI literacy actually refers to when AI is embedded, opaque, self-evolving, and deeply entangled in platforms and power structures, and whether current AI literacy discourse can move beyond instrumental skill-based framings to address the epistemological and political dimensions of AI — proposing that literacy, rights, and sovereignty responses must be developed in tandem.

Key Findings

Literacy is never neutral: tracing literacy from sixteenth-century elite domains through the Protestant Reformation, mass institutionalization, and Freirean critical literacy, Pangrazio argues literacy has always been tied to power, access, cultural authority, and social order — yet this contested history is forgotten in the rush to make AI literacy a "cure-all."

What is the "text" of AI? Conventional literacy applies to a text (a book, movie, article) that can be decoded and comprehended. For AI, the "text" is unclear — the algorithm? the LLM? the data? This makes a critical-literacy deconstruction (identifying assumptions, contradictions, intertextual references) very difficult.

AI is embedded, opaque, and evolving: AI is often not an isolated tool but part of an ecosystem (e.g., Copilot inside Microsoft 365), can be self-evolving/autonomous, is deliberately opaque (its construction is the domain of computer scientists), and most literacy approaches equate AI with generative AI, overlooking content-moderation and other instantiations.

Programmatic practices: AI reshapes practices, values, and behaviours in ways that make critique harder — it curates and shapes public discourse while also being an object to discuss and regulate (Ananny's public object/public agent distinction). Criticality requires independent thought not shaped by the very technology being scrutinized.

Digital literacies are declining and commercially captured: despite ~30 years of digital-literacies research, standardized tests (ACER 2023: only 46% of year-10 students proficient; ICILS 2023 declining) show digital literacy is falling. Meanwhile commercial tech companies (Microsoft, Google) have moved in to define literacies around their products, and AI literacy has been "cleaved off" from the broader field of digital literacies.

Literacy may not be the right response: following Eynon, literacy "responsibilises the end user" rather than exploring regulation. Pangrazio proposes that literacy, rights (safe/ethical, unbiased, privacy-protecting AI), and sovereignty (countries/institutions developing their own AI and controlling data) responses should be developed in tandem, alongside speculative and interpretive responses.

Study Design & Method

This is a critical editorial (not an empirical study) in Learning, Media and Technology. It draws on a short history of literacy (Graff; Freire; Green; Janks; Luke), scholarship on critical digital literacies and algorithmic accountability (Ananny & Crawford; Seaver; Suchman; Nichols et al.; Pangrazio & Sefton-Green), and international assessments of digital literacy (ACER 2023; ICILS 2023). The argument proceeds through conceptual analysis of three challenges to AI literacy — the embedded/opaque/evolving nature of AI, the "programmatic practices" of AI, and the history of digital literacies — before proposing alternative (rights and sovereignty) responses.

Implications for AI in Education

The editorial offers a critical corrective to the proliferation of AI literacy frameworks in education, arguing that AI Literacy is often deployed as a solutionist, instrumental "cure-all" that overlooks questions of power, agency, and ideology — the cornerstones of critical and equitable approaches. It cautions that AI literacy programmes from commercial tech companies (Google, Microsoft) can only produce "partial forms" of the knowledge and skills required, and that AI literacy should be located within the broader field of critical digital literacies rather than treated as a separate, rarefied programme. For educators, it argues institutions must be reconfigured to find time and space for critical engagement with AI, supporting students to write with, redesign, or even resist AI. It connects to AI Education, Ethics, and Generative AI, and resonates with critical work on AI literacy and power (AI literacy as power-knowledge).

Limitations

As an editorial, the article presents an argumentative and conceptual position rather than empirical evidence; it does not offer a practical AI literacy framework or curriculum. Its historical and theoretical framing draws on Western (particularly Anglophone and Freirean) literacy traditions, and the proposal for rights- and sovereignty-based responses is programmatic rather than operationalized. The critique of commercial capture is illustrative rather than systematically evidenced.

Connected Concepts

Connected Articles

AI Literacy Power Knowledge — AI Literacy: An Exercise in Power-Knowledge

Constructing Epistemic AI Literacy Student AI Co Programming — Constructing Epistemic AI Literacy

Metacognitive AI Literacy Beyond Skills Gap 2026 — Metacognitive AI Literacy: Beyond the Skills Gap

Tracing GenAI Literacy Interaction Patterns — Tracing GenAI Literacy Interaction Patterns

Posthumanist AI Literacy 2025 — A Posthumanist Approach to AI Literacy

Citation

Pangrazio, L. (2026). The (im)possibility of AI literacy. Learning, Media and Technology, 51(1), 1–7.