AI literacy could join writing and math as a core college requirement
Washington State University administrators are weighing whether artificial intelligence literacy should become a foundational skill in the university's general education curriculum, placing it alongside writing and information literacy as a core competency for all students.
Provost Chris Riley-Tillman and Vice Provost Samantha Swindell both said they expect AI literacy to be included as WSU redesigns its general education requirements. The exact form has not been decided, but Swindell was direct about the likelihood.
"I think it's going to be a component of it," she said. "I think it has to be."
Riley-Tillman went further. "It will be a core requirement," he said, comparing AI literacy to writing and basic mathematics. Students need a foundation in AI that they can build on throughout their education, he argued.
"The only hill I'm gonna die on is that we have to make sure students have a foundation in AI for the subsequent years," he said.
From grading products to evaluating process
The push for AI literacy is part of a larger shift in how WSU thinks about teaching and assessment. Swindell said generative AI is forcing educators to reconsider an approach that has traditionally focused on the final product students submit.
"We've thought about it as we gauge what students have learned and the skills that they've developed by focusing on the end product that they deliver," Swindell said. If AI can produce polished papers and presentations, the finished assignment may no longer prove a student learned the material.
Instead, Swindell said educators may need to place more emphasis on the process: how students developed an argument, arrived at a conclusion, or worked through a problem. That could require substantial course redesign, but she sees opportunity in the disruption.
"I actually think that's kind of exciting because it's asking us to think deeply about what we're doing and why we're doing it, and what learning really means," she said.
Riley-Tillman compared current concerns about generative AI to earlier debates over statistical software. When those programs became widely available, educators similarly questioned whether students could get the right answer without understanding the underlying method. The difference, he said, is that AI is a much more powerful tool. Universities still need to help students develop expertise before expecting them to use AI effectively. For educators adapting to this shift, resources like AI for Education provide ongoing coverage of how institutions are responding.
Students will help shape how AI gets used
Riley-Tillman said WSU should not assume administrators will determine all the ways AI gets integrated into university life. He expects students to play a major role in shaping that integration.
One area under consideration is student support. Riley-Tillman described the possibility of students receiving advising assistance late at night, when traditional university offices are closed. AI could provide initial answers by drawing on university materials, though he emphasized students need to remain involved in determining whether proposed uses are actually useful.
Faculty attitudes remain mixed. Some classes require students to use AI, while other instructors strongly oppose it. WSU has required faculty to include AI expectations in their syllabi so students are not left guessing. Swindell said the largest group of faculty consists of those who are curious but concerned, looking for more training on how to use AI ethically while supporting student learning. Programs like AI for Teachers address that need for practical, responsible classroom integration.
What counts as misuse
Swindell and Riley-Tillman offered complementary definitions of AI misuse. Swindell pointed to transparency: "My immediate answer is not acknowledging it, I guess, or not citing it."
Riley-Tillman agreed that transparency lets faculty provide feedback when a student's AI use seems inappropriate. But he offered another definition: using AI to replace the learning process itself. AI should supplement learning rather than substitute for it, he said.
That distinction may become more important as AI becomes an ordinary part of student life. Riley-Tillman expects the transition to take years, with younger generations eventually approaching AI as naturally as today's students approach computers and smartphones. For WSU, the goal is not to prevent students from using AI, but to ensure they understand it well enough to use it without losing the expertise a university education is meant to develop.
Why this matters for education professionals
WSU's direction signals a shift in institutional thinking: AI literacy is being treated as a baseline competency, not an elective skill. For educators and administrators at other institutions, the key takeaway is the emphasis on process-based assessment. If generative AI can produce acceptable final products, evaluating how students arrived at those products becomes the mechanism for verifying learning. Faculty who want to stay ahead should begin redesigning assignments now to capture student reasoning, drafts, and decision-making, rather than waiting for institutional policy to catch up.
Your membership also unlocks:
