AI Literacies for
Disciplinary Teaching

Faculty Workbook
Program: Campus Writing and Speaking Program, NC State University
Series: Three clusters: AI Literacy Consultations, Policy Review and Creation, Full Curricular Mapping
Reference: ai.ncsu.edu
How to use this workbook. Each cluster has its own section of activities, reflection prompts, and writing spaces. Work through all three in sequence, or start with the cluster closest to your current teaching. Four prompts, marked with an asterisk, are required. The optional prompts sit under Go further and open when you choose. Your browser saves your responses as you type. To export a PDF for your records, use Print or save as PDF at the top of the sidebar.
01

AI Literacy Consultations

Conceptual · Structural · Operative

Cluster 01 · AI Literacy Consultations

Naming the Field

This cluster works through the three-level AI literacy framework in the context of your discipline. It asks for a disciplinary analysis: what AI means for how your field makes, communicates, and assesses knowledge.
1
Conceptual Inventory
Conceptual

Begin by naming what you know. Conceptual literacy of AI starts with recognition: which tools exist, what they do, and whose knowledge they encode.

Which AI tools do researchers, practitioners, and students in your courses use in your field? Name as many as you know, and note what each one does.
Whose knowledge do these tools encode? Who built them, what training data do they draw from, and whose ways of knowing are centered or marginalized in the data?
2
Structural Analysis
Structural

Structural literacy asks what AI systems reproduce regardless of user behavior. These conditions sit in the infrastructure. They follow from the system's design and training, whatever choices individual users make.

What does AI reproduce in your field? Consider: epistemic norms (what counts as evidence), language patterns (whose prose style is centered), authority structures (which sources, voices, or methods are weighted), and knowledge hierarchies (what is systematically underrepresented or excluded).
From the research: Roberto Santiago de Roock (2024), writing from six months of his own critical use of ChatGPT, argues that generative AI carries linguistic white supremacy as a condition of its design. On his account, a critically aware user still works inside the condition. What is the parallel structural condition in your discipline?
3
Operative Judgment
Operative

Operative literacy names a capacity for contextual judgment. Given your conceptual understanding and structural analysis, what does accountable decision-making look like in your discipline? Include the conditions under which refusal is warranted.

Which intellectual labor does your discipline require students to do themselves, because handing it to AI would defeat the learning or epistemic purpose?
02

Policy Review and Creation

Reviewing and drafting AI policy with the framework

Cluster 02 · Policy Review and Creation

Policy as Argument

Course and program AI policies take positions. They communicate commitments about intellectual labor, disciplinary identity, and what the course values, often more clearly than the learning objectives do. This cluster asks you to read your existing policy (or its absence) as a rhetorical act and to draft revised language grounded in your analysis from Cluster 01.
4
Reading Your Current Policy
Structural
From the policy corpus: A corpus of 80+ AI policy documents from 24 institutions shows consistent patterns. NC State's three-tier DELTA model (restrict / learning aid / collaborative tool) encodes contradictory institutional commitments and leaves them unresolved. Ohio State added AI fluency as a graduation outcome (announced 2025, beginning with the Class of 2029) and left its 2023 conduct rule against unauthorized AI use in place, unmentioned. Cornell converted governance into downloadable icons. Each document records what its institution values, along with what it cannot say directly.
Paste or write your current course AI policy statement below (or write "none" if you don't have one).

Now read it against the three literacy levels. What does this policy ask students to know (conceptual), understand about the system (structural), and do as a matter of judgment (operative)?

5
Reviewing Against Program SLOs
Structural

A course AI policy should be legible against the program's student learning outcomes. When the two diverge, the policy ends up enforcing norms the program does not hold, or ignoring norms it does.

6
Drafting New Policy Language
Operative

Effective policy language addresses all three levels. It names the relevant AI tools or categories (conceptual), grounds its limits in what AI cannot do for disciplinary learning (structural), and specifies the judgment students must exercise, which permission or prohibition alone does not supply (operative).

Alignment note: All language you draft here should be compatible with NC State's institutional guidance at ai.ncsu.edu (opens in a new window). On request, CWSP reviews drafts for alignment before you finalize them.
Policy Drafting Template
In this course,
AI tools such as
are [permitted / not permitted / permitted with attribution] for
because
Students are expected to
03

Full Curricular Mapping

From introductory through capstone

Cluster 03 · Full Curricular Mapping

The Curriculum as Evidence

Curricular mapping asks where AI literacy currently appears in your program's arc (at which level, in which courses, with what consistency) and what the gaps reveal. The map is evidence. Nobody grades it. The program uses it to build a shared picture of the curriculum to act on.
7
Curricular Inventory
All Levels

For each stage of the curriculum, note which courses occupy the stage, whether and how AI literacy appears, and at which level (conceptual, structural, operative). Leave cells blank where AI literacy is absent. The absence belongs on the map.

Stage Courses at this stage AI literacy present? (describe) Level (C / S / O) Where it lives (syllabus, assignment, discussion)
Introductory
Core requirements
Upper-division electives
Capstone / thesis
Note for program-level mapping: This table works best when program faculty complete it together. CWSP facilitates structured sessions for this work, with shared SLOs and program documents as anchors. The resulting map becomes a shared program resource.
8
Reading the Map
Structural

A curricular map helps only when someone reads it. Answer these questions from what you filled in above.

9
Curricular Decisions
Operative

The map produces choices. From what it shows, identify two or three specific curricular decisions the program might make to address what is missing or uneven.

Across All Three Clusters

Synthesis and Next Steps

The three clusters address the same question at different scales: what does disciplinary, accountable AI literacy look like in your teaching, your course policy, and your program's curriculum? This section asks you to connect your answers across the clusters and decide on next steps.
10
What Has Shifted
Reflection
11
Next Steps Checklist
Operative

Check what you want to do next. Your choices give a follow-up CWSP consultation its starting agenda.

Campus Writing and Speaking Program  ·  NC State University  ·  ai.ncsu.edu

CWSP AI Literacies Platform

Contribute to the Archive

Anonymous · Discipline-indexed · Researchable over time
This workbook belongs to the CWSP AI Literacies Platform, a discipline-indexed archive of how faculty across colleges, departments, and programs analyze and govern AI in their teaching. When you submit, your responses join a growing record. Over time the record shows disciplinary patterns, informs CWSP programming, and supports ongoing research. The form collects no name, email address, or identifying institution. Responses carry tags for discipline, institution type, and engagement stage only.
CWSP Program Code (if provided by your liaison)
This code links your submissions across CWSP stages without identifying you or your institution.
If you came through AI Literacies independently, select Standalone. If you're unsure, select Stage 1.
How did you engage with this workbook?
Which clusters did you complete? (check all that apply)
What is collected and how it is used. Submitting this form sends your workbook responses, discipline, institution type, years of teaching experience, and engagement type to a secure CWSP archive. It does not collect your name, email address, NC State affiliation, or any other identifying information.
  • CWSP uses responses to track disciplinary patterns in AI literacy engagement over time.
  • Aggregate findings inform CWSP programming, workshop design, and ongoing research.
  • Individual responses are not published or shared in identifiable form.
  • CWSP might use this archive as a research dataset. IRB determination is pending. If the project proceeds under IRB review, CWSP will update consent procedures to match.

The Submit button opens once you fill in your discipline, institution type, years of teaching, and stage, and check the consent box.

Submitted. Your responses have been added to the CWSP AI Literacies archive. Thank you for contributing to the platform. To keep a copy, print your completed workbook with the Print button, or close this window.
Submission did not go through. This is usually a connection issue. Please try again, or contact CWSP directly to submit your responses. Your work is still saved in this browser.