The recent review of the national curriculum and assessment has proposed strengthening digital literacy at every key stage, aiming to better prepare students for rapid changes in technology and society. Recommendations include clarifying computer curriculum content, replacing the current GCSE Computer Science with a broader Computing GCSE, and mapping digital literacy instruction across all subjects.
Professor Rebecca Eynon commented on these recommendations, stating: "There is a lot that is positive in these recommendations. It offers a balanced perspective that acknowledges the importance of digital and media literacies for young people beyond AI skills. They are rooted in concerns by education experts about the lack of digital skills amongst students that need to be considered from primary school onwards; the desirability - but also challenge - of teaching digital literacies across the curriculum; the low uptake of computer science particularly by girls; and questions of how best to respond to developments in generative AI."
Eynon referenced findings from the ESRC Education project, Towards Equity Focused Edtech, which found gaps in basic digital skills among secondary school students in England. The research revealed unclear responsibilities for teaching digital literacy within schools and unequal access to technology due to varying infrastructure.
She emphasized the importance of a proactive approach: "The proposals put forward by the review will likely be welcomed by many schools who identify with these current problems. However, as the government and the education community take forward these recommendations, it is important that they are not interpreted in ways that inadvertently promote a reactive approach to AI. There is an important need for the curriculum to ‘equip young people for a world that is changing quickly,’ but it is not the case that we must simply prepare them for some kind of inevitable AI future."
According to Eynon, AI should be actively shaped rather than passively accepted: "AI is not just something to react to, but something that people should actively shape in relation to the kinds of education, and indeed society, we want. This requires a proactive, not reactive, response to AI in schools."
She outlined three key elements needed for developing effective digital literacy: criticality, inclusion, and responsibility.
On criticality: "The review sets out important foundations of digital literacy (and relatedly media literacy), which can enable young people to have the knowledge and skills to engage with learning, and to participate in social life and use technology safely. It is important that young people are not positioned as ‘end users’ of fixed AI technologies. Instead, they should be supported in becoming citizens who can use and engage with technology critically in the richest sense – including awareness of economic, political and cultural issues." She added: "Students should be taught not only to identify misinformation and disinformation, but to also learn about the complex sociological as well as technical reasons for why it occurs and its social implications."
Regarding inclusion: "Design is a key aspect of digital literacy, offering students ways to reflect on and make visible social injustices while examining how technology’s affordances and values can support or hinder inclusion. This might involve creating digital artefacts that express community realities, using coding to explore bias and discrimination in AI, or participating in design projects that address the needs of their school or local community." She noted that design principles should extend beyond just those taking computing at GCSE level.
On responsibility: "Teaching students how to question and critique generative technologies should not be the panacea for biased, unregulated, and problematic AI. There is a societal responsibility that does not just fall on young people, to find ways to better govern, regulate and change AI." She warned against shifting accountability solely onto individuals instead of holding developers responsible.
Eynon concluded: "The review is a productive basis to develop a digital literacy agenda for schools that forms part of a proactive response to AI in schools. But in determining the new curriculum’s details and how it will operate, it is important that varied voices and expertise are part of defining and setting the terms. This includes academic experts, those working in the third sector and, crucially, teachers. In the past commercial voices have been too prominent." She acknowledged limits on what curriculum changes alone can achieve but called them an important starting point.