IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/enf/proc26/art14v17.html

AI Literacy in Education across Regulatory Frameworks: A Comparative Analysis of the European Union, United States and China

Author

Listed:
  • Ana Zidărescu

    (Independent researcher, Brussels)

Abstract

AI literacy is no longer just an educational objective or an individual competence. State authority now uses it as a governance framework to manage risks and assign accountability for AI use in education. Yet, current literature continues to frame the concept almost entirely around user competence and ethical boundaries. This leaves its growing institutional role, specifically how it acts as a mechanism for legal responsibility, largely unexamined. To address this gap, the article examines how AI literacy is defined, framed, and translated into educational responsibility across three important, yet different governance models: the European Union, the United States and China. These frameworks were selected because they represent three different approaches to AI literacy governance in education: a legal-compliance model in the European Union, a decentralised, and incentive-based model in the United States, and a centralised, state led model in China. Through a qualitative comparative analysis of legal texts, official guidelines, and educationspecific policy documents, the study analyses how the same concept is assigned different regulatory and educational functions across three jurisdictions. The findings prove that AI literacy extends far beyond personal skills and competences, and it now operates primarily as a mechanism of institutional governance, fundamentally reshaping educational policy, teacher liability, and algorithmic responsibility.

Suggested Citation

Handle: RePEc:enf:proc26:art14:v:17
DOI: 10.63467/alls17.art14
as

Download full text from publisher

File URL: https://conferinta.e-nformation.ro/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/Articol_14_ALLS_17.pdf
Download Restriction: no

File URL: https://libkey.io/10.63467/alls17.art14?utm_source=ideas
LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
---><---

More about this item

Keywords

;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;

Statistics

Access and download statistics

Corrections

All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:enf:proc26:art14:v:17. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Preda, Claudia-Andreea (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.