Development of AI Literacy Instruments to Map Elementary School Students' Abilities
The development of digital technology necessitates the strengthening of artificial intelligence literacy in elementary education as part of 21st-century skills. This study aims to develop a feasible and reliable AI literacy instrument for elementary school students. The research method employs a Research and Development (R&D) approach with the ADDIE model, encompassing the stages of analysis, design, development, im…
Abstract: The development of digital technology necessitates the strengthening of artificial intelligence literacy in elementary education as part of 21st-century skills. This study aims to develop a feasible and reliable AI literacy instrument for elementary school students. The research method employs a Research and Development (R&D) approach with the ADDIE model, encompassing the stages of analysis, design, development, implementation, and evaluation. The research participants consisted of four experts for content validation and 250 elementary school students from SD Negeri 1 Sinunukan, Sinunukan District, Mandailing Natal Regency, North Sumatra, Indonesia, for empirical testing. The instrument was developed based on five indicators of AI literacy: Recognizing AI, Understanding AI, Function/Use Apply AI, Evaluate and Create AI, and AI Ethics. The expert validation results indicate that all indicators have high content validity and are declared feasible for use. Empirical validity and reliability tests show that most instrument items fall into the valid and reliable categories, although several items in the Understanding AI indicator require refinement. The implementation results demonstrate a relatively homogeneous distribution of students' AI literacy abilities, with the main challenge being the understanding of abstract AI concepts. Overall, this instrument is feasible to use as a measurement tool for AI literacy in the context of the Merdeka Curriculum.
Keywords: AI Literacy, Instrument Development, ADDIE, Validity, Reliability, Elementary Education
Built from what the sources declared and what the gates observed.
Nothing absent has been filled in here.
1 value read out of the text by the enrichment rules and 25 links to or from other resources — a lab's files, the pages it links, the works it cites stand under their elements, marked inferred, and are kept apart in the exports.
DCMI Metadata Terms. Dublin Core has no element that separates the original file from the text extracted out of it, and none for LOM's educational characterisation. Both survive here as provenance statements and in the record itself, not in the projection.
the standard ↗
The groups below are this library's, for reading. DCMI Terms itself has no categories; each term keeps its standard name.
The development of digital technology necessitates the strengthening of artificial intelligence literacy in elementary education as part of 21st-century skills. This study aims to develop a feasible and reliable AI literacy instrument for elementary school students. The research method employs a Research and Development (R&D) approach with the ADDIE model, encompassing the stages of analysis, design, development, implementation, and evaluation. The research participants consisted of four experts for content validation and 250 elementary school students from SD Negeri 1 Sinunukan, Sinunukan District, Mandailing Natal Regency, North Sumatra, Indonesia, for empirical testing. The instrument was developed based on five indicators of AI literacy: Recognizing AI, Understanding AI, Function/Use Apply AI, Evaluate and Create AI, and AI Ethics. The expert validation results indicate that all indicators have high content validity and are declared feasible for use. Empirical validity and reliability tests show that most instrument items fall into the valid and reliable categories, although several items in the Understanding AI indicator require refinement. The implementation results demonstrate a relatively homogeneous distribution of students' AI literacy abilities, with the main challenge being the understanding of abstract AI concepts. Overall, this instrument is feasible to use as a measurement tool for AI literacy in the context of the Merdeka Curriculum.
The abstract, and the depositor's additional notes after it when the source has a field for them.
inferred
read its reference list, line 275citation
doi:10.20368/1971-
doi:10.1007/s10639-024-13097-
doi:10.23887/jppp.v9i1.87473
doi:10.1007/s10639-025-13853-6
doi:10.1007/s10639-024-12758-0
doi:10.1016/j.caeai.2021.100045
doi:10.1145/3313831.3376727
doi:10.1002/pra2.487
doi:10.1016/j.caeai.2022.100054
doi:10.1080/10494820.2023.2255228
doi:10.1111/bjet.13342
doi:10.20944/preprints202510.2072.v1
and 13 more, every one of them in the export
Works this one cites, when the source declares them as relations. What its text links to and its reference list cites is inferred, and stands under it apart.
Retrieved from Zenodo on 2026-10-09 in response to the search string “("artificial intelligence" OR "machine learning" OR "generative AI" OR "deep learning" OR "reinforcement learning" OR "large language model" OR "AI") AND ("AI concepts" OR "types of AI" OR "AI fundamentals" OR "recognizing AI" OR "recognising AI" OR "general versus narrow AI" OR "narrow AI" OR "general AI" OR "machine intelligence" OR "AI strengths and weaknesses" OR "traditional software" OR "rule-based systems" OR "introduction to AI" OR "introduction to artificial intelligence" OR "artificial intelligence introduction" OR "AI primer" OR "foundations of artificial intelligence" OR "overview of AI" OR "understanding AI" OR "history of AI" OR "AI essentials" OR "AI terminology" OR "metaphors for AI" OR "AI fundamental concepts" OR "AI key concepts" OR "philosophy of AI" OR "critical AI literacy")”. Zenodo served the resource and is not asserted to be its publisher or author.
Text extracted from pdf to Markdown by pdf-inspector; the original is retained unchanged beside it.
Where it was collected from, what was converted, and what container it came out of — the custody statements that would otherwise be mistaken for authorship.
IEEE 1484.12.1 Learning Object Metadata. LOM has no element for an SPDX identifier or a licence URI, so both are written into 6.3 Rights.Description. Flattening this record into simple Dublin Core would lose more again, which is why the two projections exist side by side rather than one being generated from the other.
the standard ↗
The development of digital technology necessitates the strengthening of artificial intelligence literacy in elementary education as part of 21st-century skills. This study aims to develop a feasible and reliable AI literacy instrument for elementary school students. The research method employs a Research and Development (R&D) approach with the ADDIE model, encompassing the stages of analysis, design, development, implementation, and evaluation. The research participants consisted of four experts for content validation and 250 elementary school students from SD Negeri 1 Sinunukan, Sinunukan District, Mandailing Natal Regency, North Sumatra, Indonesia, for empirical testing. The instrument was developed based on five indicators of AI literacy: Recognizing AI, Understanding AI, Function/Use Apply AI, Evaluate and Create AI, and AI Ethics. The expert validation results indicate that all indicators have high content validity and are declared feasible for use. Empirical validity and reliability tests show that most instrument items fall into the valid and reliable categories, although several items in the Understanding AI indicator require refinement. The implementation results demonstrate a relatively homogeneous distribution of students' AI literacy abilities, with the main challenge being the understanding of abstract AI concepts. Overall, this instrument is feasible to use as a measurement tool for AI literacy in the context of the Merdeka Curriculum.
The abstract, and the depositor's additional notes after it as a second LangString when the source has a field for them.
Siregar, Torang (Department of Mathematics Education, Faculty of Tarbiyah and Teacher Training (FTIK), UIN Syekh Ali Hasan Ahmad Addary Padangsidimpuan, Padangsidimpuan, North Sumatra, Indonesia) [0009-0006-1416-0461] — author
Role, entity and date per declared contribution. A role outside LOM's vocabulary is reported in the entry's description instead.
3 Meta-metadata
4/4
Identifier3.1
this engine
resource_id
URI: tag:aim-pro.eu,2026:oer/e02786ff2043/record
The identifier of this metadata record — the resource's own, with /record after it, because the record is a description of the resource and not the resource.
Contribute3.2
this engine
source
AIM-PRO WP3 OER harvester (Zenodo) — creator
Who generated this record and when — a statement about the record, not about the resource.
Yes unless the licence reserves nothing — attribution is a restriction. The conditions after the dash are the licence gate's reading; the export carries LOM's bare term.
inferred
read its reference list, line 275citation
URI: Identifier
publication-article
URI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19342920
all versions of this deposit
Markdown extracted from the original by pdf-inspector
references: doi:10.20368/1971-
references: doi:10.1007/s10639-024-13097-
references: doi:10.23887/jppp.v9i1.87473
references: doi:10.1007/s10639-025-13853-6
references: doi:10.1007/s10639-024-12758-0
references: doi:10.1016/j.caeai.2021.100045
references: doi:10.1145/3313831.3376727
references: doi:10.1002/pra2.487
references: doi:10.1016/j.caeai.2022.100054
references: doi:10.1080/10494820.2023.2255228
references: doi:10.1111/bjet.13342
references: doi:10.20944/preprints202510.2072.v1
and 13 more, every one of them in the export
The container a file was found inside, and the Markdown extracted from the original. What a lab requires, and the lab a component belongs to, are inferred and stand apart.
8 Annotation
0/3
Entity8.1
not collected — this library does not fill it
Comments on the resource's educational use, by whoever made them. The platform's review grades competencies, which are classification (9), and writes no comment here.
Date8.2
not collected — this library does not fill it
Description8.3
not collected — this library does not fill it
9 Classification
0/4
Purpose9.1
not collected — this library does not fill it
Empty in the record: no source declares a competency. The alignment reads the resource for them and stands beside the record, never in it, and a taxon path derived from the search string that found it would be a claim about the query.
Taxon path9.2
not collected — this library does not fill it
Where the competency framework goes. Empty in the record for the reason above.
Description9.3
not collected — this library does not fill it
Keyword9.4
not collected — this library does not fill it
What could not be established5
Where the source's metadata could not be carried
over as it was — missing, contradictory, with no matching term in the
standard, restructured, or taken from the repository — and what was done
instead. Without these notes, an empty element would look like something
the harvester missed.
Status
Field
Why
Restructured
subjects
a keyword arrived as one comma-joined string and was split into the terms it was carrying
Not available
declared_language
the source declared no language; the recorded content language is this engine's reading of the text
Not available
rights_holder
no rights holder is named at source; the licence is recorded without one rather than attributed to the platform that served it
Not available
publisher
the source named no publisher of the work; where it was collected from is recorded as collection provenance instead, which is a different claim
Not available
educational
the source declared no educational metadata — no resource type, audience, context, difficulty or learning time. Nothing here estimates them