Umeå University's logo

As artificial intelligence (AI) increasingly shapes society (Örtegren, 2024), education systems both in the Nordics and globally face the challenge of preparing students for socio-technical change, including AI-related digital competence with knowledge, skills, and democratic values. The challenge of preparing students for such changes play out in the field of digital education, where various actors (e.g., think tanks, media, researchers, teacher unions, commercial actors) engage in knowledge production and policy construction (Rensfeldt & Player-Koro, 2020). Such policy processes include curriculum change, where some countries have embedded AI-related digital competence within existing subjects, while others have created separate AI school subjects (UNESCO, 2022). 

The aim of this paper is to examine the integration of AI into the Swedish upper secondary school as a separate school subject, particularly how policy ideas about AI education are shaped and legitimized within the context of Nordic education. The theoretical framework used for analysis draws on new institutionalism, with attention to how ideas, institutions, and policy actors interact in educational change processes. The analyzed data include policy texts and interviews with key policy-process participants. 

The early results indicate how AI as a separate school subject is shaped by ideas embedded within discourses about future readiness and educational responsiveness to societal change. The influence of ideas seemingly stem from policy-process participants’ positions within the policy process combined with their networks outside the forum for official AI school subject policymaking. Ultimately, the ideas create tensions between democratic citizenship and social equity on the one hand, and labor market demands and global competitiveness on the other. These tensions reflect broader challenges in Nordic education systems as they adapt to technological change while committed to democratic values and social justice. The tentative results point to how AI education in the Nordic context can become a political project (cf. Selwyn, 2022), characterized by competing values and technical-instrumentalist perspectives that shape institutional structures and educational goals.

Critical Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) literacy cannot be reduced to a universal framework. Rather, it must be understood as a constellation of situated literacies, shaped by disciplinary perspectives, socio-political contexts, and technological affordances. This multi-authored article explores the emerging concept of critical GenAI literacy and its postdigital configurations. Fourteen authors contributed with different sections, followed by five author-reviewers who examined the article as a whole. The objective was to invite diverse perspectives, constructive critique, and promote collaborative efforts to develop a clearer and more inclusive understanding of critical GenAI literacy. The introduction focuses on establishing some initial assumptions about what we mean by ‘critical’ in general, and for GenAI literacy in particular, and why a conjunction of postdigital configurations of the construct emerges as an adequate methodological solution. In the main part of the article, some authors focus on the concept of ‘literacies’ as a starting point for their reflection, while others directly examine critical GenAI literacy through a postdigital perspective. We conclude that critical GenAI literacy requires moving beyond technical skills to engage with AI’s epistemological, ethical, and relational dimensions, ensuring learners critically interrogate its role in knowledge production. Future inquiry should focus on integrating this literacy into education in ways that promote social justice, epistemic diversity, and democratic participation.

Democracy and citizenship education are key priorities across European education systems, with schools and teacher education playing vital roles in preparing young people for participation in society (Raiker et al., 2019). Artificial intelligence (AI) is becoming increasingly important in this context, making it a key priority for the European Commission (2020) in light of how digital technologies are globally reshaping relationships between democracy, technology, and education (Vuorikari et al., 2022). In European schools, democracy and citizenship are commonly addressed in the school subject social science education. Because this subject is responsive to its societal context (Sandahl, 2018), the changing relationships between democracy and technology place new demands on social science teacher education, with AI as a crucial aspect. Specifically, teacher educators need professional digital competence (PDC) to prepare social science teachers to address democracy related to AI and other digital technologies, which in the literature has emerged as a distinct field known as digital citizenship. While research has highlighted the importance of teacher educators’ PDC in supporting student teachers’ development of knowledge and skills related to digital technologies broadly (Gudmundsdottir & Hatlevik, 2018), less is known about how teacher educators view their PDC and teaching responsibilities related to digital citizenship with a focus on AI (Örtegren & Olofsson, 2024; Velander et al., 2024; cf. Sperling et al., 2024).

Through a survey, this mixed-methods paper examines the following research questions: (a) What patterns emerge in how social science teacher educators across teacher education institutions in Sweden view their PDC and teaching responsibilities related to digital citizenship?, and (b) How do social science teacher educators view the role of social science education in addressing AI as part of teaching for digital citizenship? The Swedish context offers insights into broader European trends in digital citizenship education (European Commission, 2021), particularly discussions about teacher educators’ preparedness to address democracy in rapidly evolving societal contexts where technology and social practices influence each other (Cervera & Caena, 2022; MacKenzie & Wajcman, 2005).

The paper is theoretically informed by conceptualizations of PDC as dynamic and responsive to societal changes, where teacher educators face a dual-didactic task: teaching both subject content and how to teach that content (Uerz et al., 2018). Reportedly, this dual role is particularly complex in social science education, where content itself is in flux due to rapid sociotechnical developments. This paper thus addresses calls for research on how teacher education institutions across Europe prepare future teachers to address the implications of digital technologies for democracy (Flores, 2023; Örtegren, 2024; Vajen et al., 2023).

Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used

The study employed a convergent mixed-methods design (Creswell & Clark, 2018) where quantitative and qualitative data were collected simultaneously through a web-based survey distributed to social science teacher educators across Sweden’s teacher education institutions. Participants were identified through purposive sampling, with recommendations from 16 program coordinators, directors of studies, and subject directors at Swedish teacher education institutions, identifying 78 teacher educators whose teaching included or could include questions related to digital citizenship.

The survey combined closed and open-ended questions, allowing for both broad pattern identification and deeper insights into teacher educators’ views (Creswell & Clark, 2018). The survey design was informed by previous qualitative studies in the Swedish teacher education context (Örtegren, 2022; Örtegren & Olofsson, 2024), with additional questions concerning AI technologies. Quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive statistics in SPSS, while qualitative data from open-ended questions were analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis (Braun et al., 2019) in NVivo to enable an integrated (mixed) interpretation of the results.

Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings

Initial analyses suggest that as teacher educators navigate their dual-didactic task related to digital citizenship, particularly concerning AI, differences emerge in PDC and teaching responsibilities. Specifically, the analyses suggest three themes. First, while teacher educators generally acknowledge the importance of addressing digital citizenship in social science teacher education, including AI, there seem to be variations in what aspects they believe should be addressed and how. Initial analyses highlight the dominant role of source criticism, although interpretations of what this means for teaching and learning may vary.

Second, the early results indicate that teacher educators’ personal trajectories and institutional contexts influence their approach to teaching for digital citizenship. This includes how previous teaching experience, research interests, and disciplinary backgrounds can shape their understanding of why digital citizenship should be addressed in social science teacher education and the extent to which AI should be incorporated.

Third, the initial analyses also point to organizational and personal conditions, and how these can influence teacher educators’ PDC to teach for digital citizenship. Organizational challenges may include maintaining responsiveness to societal and technological change, particularly concerning AI – a key priority in European education policy (European Commission, 2021). Personal conditions are potentially linked to disciplinary backgrounds, reflecting broader European challenges in teacher education, where teacher educators’ preparedness to address emerging technologies like AI varies considerably across institutions and disciplines (Cervera & Caena, 2022).

In the European context, these results can inform teacher education research and practice by providing insights into how institutions can better support teacher educators’ PDC development in ways that are responsive to sociotechnical change. This includes understanding how disciplinary backgrounds and institutional contexts shape approaches to digital citizenship, and developing organizational structures that promote both responsiveness to emerging technologies like AI and program cohesion at European teacher education institutions.

In response to the rapid spread of AI systems in recent years, the European Union has sought to support member states, for example by creating a common regulatory and legal framework for AI, the Artificial Intelligence Act, and making AI a prioritized area in education (European Commission, 2020). Meanwhile, education institutions, confronted already with AI systems in various areas, find limited support in EU-related skills frameworks to address AI-related technological change. Key frameworks such as DigComp 2.2 (Vuorikari et al., 2022) and DigCompEdu (Punie & Redecker, 2017) outline expectations for Europeans’ digital competence, albeit with limited attention to AI. There is little policy consensus generally on what constitutes essential AI skills, echoing the situation some 20 years ago with regard to digital competence.

Amid these tensions, teachers in Europe run the risk of facing AI-related challenges alone. This could lead to, for example, neglect of technological change or uncritical adoption of AI technology at the expense of student privacy and educational quality (Bozkurt et al., 2024). While education researchers are grappling with what AI literacy includes, there is even less agreement on the AI literacy required specifically for educators and teacher training programmes. A broader working definition of AI literacy, used by UNESCO (2022) and many scholars (Laupichler et al., 2022), is ‘a set of competences that enable individuals to critically evaluate AI technologies, communicate and collaborate effectively with AI, and use AI as a tool online, at home and in the workplace’ (Long & Magerko, 2020, p. 2).

The Erasmus+ Teacher Academy AI2PI (Project number: 101196121 — AI2PI) directly responds to these challenges through a consortium that brings together expertise from seven European countries. Selected for funding by the European Education and Culture Executive Agency, the project employs design-based research to examine and support educators' professional and critical use of AI in teaching and learning. AI2PI specifically addresses how teachers across diverse European contexts can develop and implement AI literacy when it comes to, for example, developing information and data literacy, teaching in multilingual classrooms with mixed language learners, and the cultivation of responsible digital citizenship in innovative and inclusive learning environments.

AI2PI’s approach recognizes the challenges of integrating a wide range of AI-related skills and knowledge into curricula in European schools and teacher training and translate these into high-quality teaching and learning activities (cf. Giannakos et al., 2024). Through pedagogical labs across European contexts, AI2PI is developing and examining professional development opportunities for individual teachers while fostering communities of practice that address self-identified pedagogical challenges in effectively engaging with AI in teaching and learning.

The development of the Teacher Academy will be scientifically monitored and evaluated using a design-based research methodology. As a result, it is not only expected that a high-quality training module will be created, it will also be capable of gaining knowledge about and for the use of AI in educational contexts.

This panel discussion brings together consortium members to share their project contributions, research approaches, and early insights from the pedagogical labs, fostering collaborative dialogue about AI literacy development in Europe.

The increasing presence of AI across social domains has stirred interest in the importance of individuals possessing AI-related skills and knowledge, often referred to as AI literacy. This literacy is commonly defined as competencies allowing individuals to critically evaluate and engage with AI technologies (Long & Magerko, 2020; Ng, 2021). Consequently, AI as a subject matter is being introduced in educational contexts worldwide, for example in existing subjects or separate AI school subjects (UNESCO, 2022). In Sweden, the empirical context of this paper, AI became an elective subject in upper-secondary STEM programs in 2024, including both theoretical and practical approaches to AI, with an expansion to all programs in 2025. As such, the new AI subject must be compatible with a range of program goals and content. Our paper focuses on how AI and the associated AI literacy are conceptualized in the national curriculum and relevant guiding materials.

To date, AI education research has often focused on the theoretical dimensions of AI education e.g.,  AI definitions, practical applications of AI in everyday life, identification and recognition of AI systems, data structures, propositional logic, Python programming, natural language processing, computer vision, and machine learning (Sperling et al., 2024). This aligns with a functional literacy perspective, where AI literacy translates into a generic set of cognitive skills and includes competencies and skills for using AI in work and life, with a tendency toward instrumental understandings of AI (Velander et al., 2024). Therefore, calls for more critical literacy perspectives have been made (Merchant, 2021; Leander & Burris, 2020) to include, for example, questioning issues of power and control that underpin AI integration in society (Lankshear & Knobel, 1998; Merchant, 2021). 

Acknowledging the discussions above and the conceptual ambiguity of AI literacy, we examine how AI is conceptualized, including associated AI literacy perspectives, in AI-related steering documents for the AI subject in Swedish upper secondary school. Our paper contributes knowledge on the opportunities for upper-secondary school students to develop AI literacy and what being AI literate means. The following research question guides our study: How are AI and AI literacy conceptualized in current policy, guiding documents, and support materials for the AI subject in Swedish upper secondary school?

To this end, we performed a document analysis (DA) on data related to the AI subject, comprising the national curriculum for upper secondary school, syllabi, and supplementary documents like commentaries and professional development texts, developed by the Swedish National Agency for Education, to guide and support teachers. As an analytical lens, we use Lankshear and Knoble’s (1998) literacy framework, which takes a sociocultural perspective on literacies to examine the presence (or absence) of any of three equally important and interrelated literacy perspectives: operational (competency/mastery, to use AI in a range of contexts in an appropriate manner); cultural (being literate in regards to something, i.e. understanding AI as situated in different contexts); and critical (understanding the socially constructed and context-sensitive nature of human practices used for meaning-making, as well as the ability to take active part in the transformation of such practices (Lemke, 1998). Following Bowen’s (2009) three-step approach to DA, our analysis first focused deductively on identifying and coding relevant text passages using Lankshear and Knoble's framework. Close reading with inductive coding followed, focusing on content in the previously identified passages from each perspective on AI literacy. The final step included condensation and a write-up of the results.

Early results indicate a dominant operational literacy perspective on AI in the course syllabi. While operational competencies such as the ability to use AI in different contexts are important for engaging with AI from cultural and critical literacy perspectives, this presupposes relating and embedding operational competences in sociocultural contexts. Moreover, the results indicate that AI is conceptualized as a technology that we need to understand to use it responsibly, be able to evaluate its outcomes, and discuss its possible implications. A more critical perspective is absent, however, like identifying, questioning, re-imagining and actively contributing to transforming AI practices. In contrast, supplementary documents and support materials available to teachers reflect a more holistic approach in our analysis, where operational literacy is often linked to cultural and critical perspectives. For example, support materials on teaching about information search and retrieval and search algorithms (e.g., Sundin & Haider, 2016) are informed not only by technological constraints and abilities, but also cultural values, norms and commercial interests. Investigating these aspects of search and information retrieval includes inspecting algorithms and data as well as their outcomes and implications. From a critical perspective, these can be questioned and re-constructed to reflect on the values represented (or absent) in AI contexts. In conclusion, the analyzed documents represent AI literacy in different ways which, when translated into teachers’ practice, may shape students’ opportunities to develop AI literacy with implications for e.g., equity and students’ life and work in a rapidly changing world with AI. This extends to teacher education, which must consider relevant steering and support documents when preparing the next generation of AI teachers (cf. Örtegren & Olofsson, 2024).

Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document Analysis as a Qualitative Research Method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27–40. https://doi.org/10.3316/QRJ0902027

Lankshear, C., & Knobel, M. (1998). Critical Literacy and New Technologies. http://www. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED444169

Leander, K. M., & Burriss, S. K. (2020). Critical literacy for a posthuman world: When people read, and become, with machines. British Journal of Educational Technology, 51(4), 1262–1276. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12924

Lemke, J. (1998). Multiplying meaning. Reading science: Critical and functional perspectives on discourses of science, 87.

Long, D., & Magerko, B. (2020). What is AI Literacy? Competencies and Design Considerations. Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376727

Merchant, G. (2021). Reading with technology: The new normal. Education 3-13, 49(1), 96–106. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004279.2020.1824705

Ng, D. T. K., Leung, J. K. L., Chu, S. K. W., & Qiao, M. S. (2021). Conceptualizing AI literacy: An exploratory review. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 2, 100041. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2021.100041

Sperling, K., Stenberg, C.-J., McGrath, C., Åkerfeldt, A., Heintz, F., & Stenliden, L. (2024). In search of artificial intelligence (AI) literacy in teacher education: A scoping review. Computers and Education Open, 6, 100169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeo.2024.100169

Sundin, O., & Haider, J. (2016). Sökkritik och algoritmers synlighet. Skolverket.

Velander, J., Otero, N., & Milrad, M. (2024). What is Critical (about) AI Literacy? Exploring Conceptualizations Present in AI Literacy Discourse. In A. Buch, Y. Lindberg, & T. Cerratto Pargman (Eds.), Framing Futures in Postdigital Education (pp. 139–160). Springer Nature Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-58622-4_8

UNESCO. (2022). K-12 AI curricula: A mapping of government-endorsed AI curricula (ED-2022/FLI-ICT/K-12 REV.).

Örtegren, A., & Olofsson, A. D. (2024). Pathways to professional digital competence to teach for digital citizenship: Social science teacher education in flux. Teachers and Teaching, 30(4), 526–544. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2024.2342860

Increasingly pervasive digital technologies in societies are placing complex demands on the development of young people’s digital citizenship and digital competence. Social science education and teacher education (TE) play important, but poorly understood, roles in this development. Through reflexive thematic analysis of semi-structured interviews, this paper explores 15 Swedish teacher educators’ (TEDs) views of teaching for digital citizenship, particularly social science TE’s role. We also consider organisational and personal conditions that may influence TEDs’ views of professional digital competence (PDC) for such teaching. Their views are examined through a postdigital lens, with a focus on democratic implications in evolving socio-technical environments. The results indicate that TEDs acknowledge the importance of social science TE in teaching for digital citizenship, but find maintaining responsiveness to societal changes challenging. Challenges are also posed by the multidisciplinary character of social science education, including how personal trajectories shape TEDs’ views of their dual-didactic task of teaching to teach for digital citizenship. This paper contributes knowledge of how TEDs, as ‘street-level bureaucrats’ in social science TE, navigate between written and performed education policy in teaching for digital citizenship, with specific attention to the dynamic character of PDC in social science education.

Embedded in society, digital infrastructure has changed citizens’ lives. Young people therefore need to develop digital competence and digital citizenship, and schools have an important role in this regard. To prepare new schoolteachers for this role, teacher educators (TEDs) need professional digital competence (PDC) that includes knowledge, competences, and a conceptual understanding to teach teaching for digital citizenship. In light of the limited body of research on theorizing digital citizenship in relation to TEDs’ PDC, this paper critically analyzes three conceptualizations of digital citizenship. Being potentially normative and part of the latest phase of development in the field, these conceptualizations could shape TEDs’ PDC and practice. In a qualitative content analysis of the selected conceptualizations, this paper uses a postdigital lens to bring into focus and critically analyze aspects of philosophical underpinnings related to socio-technical relations. The results show that conceptualizations of digital citizenship convey different understandings of human–technology relations and the knowledge and competences necessary to exercise digital citizenship. These differences have far-reaching implications for TEDs’ PDC in ways that could impact students’ opportunities to develop digital competence and digital citizenship. Therefore, TEDs’ PDC needs to include a critical understanding of digital citizenship, and the post-pandemic juncture of “new normal” provides opportunities to rethink and reframe PDC. To this end, a postdigital lens can shift the focus to how PDC is contingent on the shifting entanglements in which pedagogical activities are situated and orchestrated, and how these relate to broader issues of injustice in society.

Democracy in 2024 is inherently postdigital, yet in literature, the term ‘postdigital democracy’ has received limited attention. Postdigital democracy critically highlights how entanglements of humans, digital technologies, and societal structures impact societies and social life. It is a mashup of continuities (e.g., values, participation, and socio-political histories) and ruptures (e.g., datafication, disinformation, and algorithmic decision-making) which transcend boundaries between geographies, digital–analog, and biological–informational. This entry approaches an understanding of postdigital democracy in three ways: by consulting the concepts of postdigital citizenship, postdigital publics, and by considering the postdigital totality of relations influencing society’s affairs. The entry does not offer a conclusive definition of postdigital democracy. Instead, it offers examples of what postdigital democracy is or can be.

With the past 20 years of increasingly pervasive digital technologies in educational and societal contexts, young people’s development of digital citizenship has become important to participate and act as members of society. To this end, schools have an important role, and new teachers need to be prepared through the support of teacher educators. Focusing on their dual-didactic role, this lightning talk highlights opportunities and challenges for teacher educators’ professional digital competence (PDC) to teach for digital citizenship. Using examples from the Swedish context, the talk highlights tensions in teacher educators’ PDC where their understanding of digital citizenship may be broadly compatible with the postdigital but less nuanced in the context of education. Similarly, teacher educators may have PDC to teach about digital citizenship but feel ill-prepared to teach teaching for digital citizenship, where further complexity comes from the strive to have PDC that is responsive to postdigital developments in society. The lightning talk draws attention to the opportunities of using a postdigital lens to support teacher educators’ PDC to include a deep conceptual understanding of digital citizenship, which is important for the preparation of future teachers and, in turn, young people’s development of digital citizenship.