1 Introduction
Students today are expected to know how to find information on different digital platforms and be able to make meaning from a never-ending flow of information. The term media and information literacy frames this knowledge (Carlsson, 2014; Grizzle et al., 2021; Rivano Eckerdal & Sundin, 2014), and an emerging but significant part of this knowledge is to assess AI (artificial
Due to the changes in society, Skantz-Åberg et al. (2022) have argued for a need to equip students with the ability to cope with future challenges that new technologies will present. Schools and their learning contexts are therefore important for conceptualising AI as a part of the writing process and making this the subject of analysis. Students can of course acquire skills like these in social contexts online, together with friends (Gee, 2005). In school, however, students get the opportunity to meet peers they would not otherwise choose to meet and engage in social practices which help learning (Gee, 2008). In addition, teachers’ didactic analysis and choice of educational content are of utmost importance (Klafki, 2000). The teachers’ content knowledge is pivotal when it comes to giving students the knowledge and resources required to become active citizens in society – which Young (2009) calls powerful knowledge.
Skills in media and information literacy are included in several school subjects (Skolverket, 2024). In Swedish L1 in upper secondary school, the focus in terms of these skills lies in the ability to review and process information when reading and writing different types of texts (Skolverket, 2022). AI is not an explicit part of Swedish L1, but a student who has graduated from a Swedish upper secondary school is expected to be media and information literate. The responsibility lies heavily on the Swedish subject when it comes to teaching a critical approach to information (Nemeth, 2021).
Students are subjected to a constantly changing media landscape and what tools they use fluctuate with the times (Andersson, 2024). AI is an emerging artefact when it comes to writing, Students’ own perspectives on using AI as a tool for writing during Swedish L1 lessons provide a valuable source of knowledge, especially for teachers and teacher educators in order to be able to develop a strong classroom practice.
The purpose of this study is to deepen the knowledge of students’ perceptions of the use of artificial intelligence in writing in Swedish L1.
- –What role does AI have in the students’ descriptions of their writing practices?
- –What opportunities and challenges of AI in relation to writing in school emerge in the students’ descriptions?
2 Previous Research
A welcoming view on AI chatbots in an educational setting is suggested by Halaweh (2023), as an open approach to the use of AI resources could improve the quality of written texts and help human writers get an overview of ideas they might otherwise not obtain. A hybrid between AI and humans when writing texts is therefore seen as an ideal. In an interview study of South Australian fifteen-year-olds by Marrone et al. (2022), results show that students do not believe AI can match human creativity. AI chatbots have, however, been proven to work well in feedback situations, where students lack a tutor, or where classes are large. In these cases, an AI can fill the gap of an absent or otherwise occupied teacher (Fidan & Gencel, 2022).
A writing process also depends on information search, and even though studies of AI in relation to this task are still at an early stage, students’ search strategies are not a completely unexplored topic. This has been examined by Hämäläinen et al. (2021), Bråten et al. (2019), Nygren and Guath (2020), and others. These studies show that students need structured support in learning how to evaluate information. In a study of university students, it was discovered that a deeper understanding of online texts could be gained by regularly scrolling back and rereading paragraphs (Haverkamp & Bråten, 2022).
A relevant study by Nemeth (2021) on the subject of media and information literacy brings to light critical consciousness in Swedish L1 in upper secondary school. Nemeth describes the task of writing and reading critically in the classroom as something that is not done easily – neither for teachers to teach nor for students to execute. Nemeth suggests that information search should be a joint project, where teachers and students discuss different texts in the classroom.
A stronger connection between artificial intelligence in education and pedagogical research is called for by, among others, Zawacki-Richter et al. (2019). Given the need for students to develop strategies for knowledge of information search and the challenges which emerge when AI technology is introduced to a school subject such as Swedish L1, it could be valuable to explore the implications for writing practices in the subject with the help of clues offered by students themselves. This study addresses the challenges presented in the previous research mentioned above, thus making a contribution to the field of education.
In this study, the term media and information literacy is closely linked to new literacies, which includes the ability to interpret multimodal information beyond text (Johansson & Limberg, 2017). The wider term, new literacy studies, which according to Barton and Lee (2011, p. 599) “provides a powerful lens for examining the changing nature of texts and discourses in our contemporary society”, would be a fitting framework when it comes to examining students’ writing practices. Literacy is not confined to a classroom and information search and writing can be executed in different settings, such as local and global domains (Pahl & Rowsell, 2012), where a local domain could be school or the home, and a global domain could be the internet, films and so on. In these settings, literacy events and literacy practices are taking place. A literacy event can be a student writing an essay in a local domain, while a literacy practice is the synthetisation of many events (Barton & Lee, 2011). The literacy practice in focus for this study is using AI while writing.
A part of being media literate is to understand the power behind media and to have access to tools to critically analyse it (Barton, 2019). As information search – online and elsewhere – and evaluation of sources include reading and evaluating texts, the field of critical literacy (Janks, 2013) will serve as a point of departure. Information is a representation of the creator’s subjective reality (Weyergang & Frønes, 2020), and this perspective emphasises that reading and writing practices are always subject to interpretation and subjectivity, hence never neutral. Texts always represent perspectives and different ideological positions (Janks et al., 2019).
Since the study does not only aim to investigate students’ reading and information search, but also their writing practices, critical literacy will be especially useful as a tool for analysis. Janks offers a synthesis model of critical literacy, with the terms power, diversity, access, design/redesign (see Janks, 2010, 2013), which will be used in the analysis of the content in this study. According to Janks, power is power to name the world and involves who has agency in the classroom. Power is an interest in relation to AI in this study. Access is about access to material, and for this study this will mean access to different kinds of information sources and tools for writing. Diversity is for Janks the diversity that a classroom offers and where the teacher can let the students’ different experiences and backgrounds be part of the learning context. Diversity is also about the plethora of information channels, providing different perspectives for students when writing. Design and redesign concerns shaping and reframing what is read in order to interpret existing texts and write new ones, which in the case of this study is important in Swedish L1.
4 Methodology and Methods
During April and May 2023, short, semi-structured interviews were conducted individually with twelve upper secondary students from a higher education preparatory program in year two and three. The students were between 17 and 19 years old. The interviews were held as part of a larger study, where lessons and students’ screen recordings also were analysed. Since all the students were already familiar with the researcher from the ongoing study, it was easy to get to the core questions of the interviews quickly.
The interviews were held in a separate classroom and began with questions about the lesson content and the students’ own search processes. Questions were also asked to obtain students’ perspectives on media and information literacy. This rather complex term was concretised with terms such as: artificial intelligence, information search, source evaluation and fake news. The questions were divided into three themes: 1: The teaching situation, 2: The material and the progression. 3: Challenges of using the computer screen as a classroom.
The material has been transcribed and then analysed thematically in different phases (see Braun & Clarke, 2006; Robson & McCartan, 2016). Different codes were created inductively, that is, they were not predetermined before the interviews began, but discovered in the existing material with the help of recurring wording from the respondents (e.g., creativity, locked up, help). Finally, four distinct themes presenting a nuanced picture of the interview data were created. The themes contain diversity, but have a unifying central idea. The thematic coding analysis was chosen for this study because it provides a clear framework for analysis as well as being easy to access and understand (Robson & McCartan, 2016). As this study aims to help both scholars and practitioners with an understanding of AI as an emerging literacy practice in writing in Swedish L1, a thematic analysis would be a good way to approach the data.
The study was part of the project “Platform pedagogy” (Swedish Research Council, Dnr 2019-03760), which has been reviewed by the research ethics committee of Karlstad University. This study used informed consent and information letters. Verbal information was also given in connection with personal data information and consent letters. The students’ participation was pseudonymised and the data was recorded and saved in such a way that it is not disseminated to unauthorised persons. The study does not process or request any sensitive personal data, and no such data emerged during the interviews.
This chapter reports on the themes that emerged in the interviews with students. The themes were: AI as a provider of access and diversity, Insufficient support for designing and redesigning, A clash between process and product, and Embracing AI in the writing process. All the cited student’s names are pseudonymised.
5.1 AI as a Provider of Access and Diversity
When the students themselves described their writing practices in Swedish L1, AI was something that they highlighted as a large part of their initial information search process. It was used for all kinds of information search, as a search engine and as an easily accessible encyclopaedia. As the student Stephen puts it: “It [AI] collects all the knowledge it can find”.
When the students spoke of Swedish L1, AI was described as a tool for inspiration and ideas for different kinds of texts, such as when Serena needed to find a new perspective for a manuscript to a speech about hip-hop in the third year of Swedish L1: “But it can be a good thing to get inspiration for, like arguments”.
And then I am able to find, like three arguments that indicate that the central theme is not to play God and then I can use these three arguments to write my own text. (Peter)
Peter said he could continue his process of analysing the theme and message of the novel, based on the help he received from the AI chatbot. Tristan also talked about how it could be valuable to request help from AI when he was having trouble moving forward in his writing process. Once, when he got stuck when preparing for an argumentative speech, he asked an AI chatbot for help: “because I needed a third argument and I couldn’t think of anything, so I found an argument that it wrote”. After this artificial push forward, Tristan was able to write further on his manuscript. AI thus became one of the sources of information and part of the support structure when seeking information.
You almost always have to think about it [things] yourself and find your own sources and examples, because it [AI] is not very good at that. (Serena)
That is also what Sean said that he used a chatbot for. He simply let the AI summarise different texts for him so that he could get access to information quickly: “And then I kind of continue myself”.
And I don’t think that’s a bad thing, but then you really only get a basis and know exactly what to write, and then you still have to use your own words. (Peter)
For the surveyed students, AI chatbots thus functioned as a source of information, study aid, springboard for ideas, and someone to brainstorm ideas with for assignments and texts. AI provided the students with, using Janks’ (2013) terms, access to information and also diversity when it comes to different strategies for processing information. In this respect, AI seemed to benefit their writing process.
5.2 Insufficient Support for Designing and Redesigning
For, like writing a complete, complete essay, like … I have never …. Like, then it has never been quite so good that I kind of want to use it. (Theodor)
No, but it’s something with the grammar or something. Just how it’s structured. And then it always ends … the last or last paragraph always starts with “finally” or “to summarise”. (Elliot)
It becomes someone, something in between, as [the teacher] said. Formal and informal. It’s like, there’s no real me, even though it’s not entirely clear. (Hedda)
I wouldn’t use it for pathos, as I think the important thing about pathos is empathy and I feel that I as a person can have more empathy when I know … I know those who are in the room. (Filip)
It really articulates itself as a robot. Or it writes very scientifically and if you want to reach out with a little more emotion and stuff like that, it’s really not possible to use it. (Serena)
5.3 A Clash between Process and Product
The interviews showed that AI has become increasingly prevalent both in the general debate in society and in the students’ consciousness. Their school had also become more restrictive with tasks that could be done with the help of AI. Although the students themselves said that they did not submit texts to teachers written by AI chatbots, they said that writing in school had changed precisely because of this technology: “So now, now that Chat GPT and the internet are so easy to access, there is almost no writing at home” (Peter). The students said that now they were required to write essays and exams on digital platforms specialised to lock the students’ computers from going online for information. The students said they understood that the risk of cheating with the help of AI was dire – even though they themselves did not find AI suitable for text production: “It is probably because the teachers want to know, like one hundred percent, that we are the ones who write the text” (Serena).
To be fair, that was also the case before with assignments. Someone else could have written it or there has been AI in other forms as well, but now it’s kind of extra easy. It’s just like … Copy the entire instruction … And then it kind of solves it. (Theodor)
Yes, but the difficult thing was that if you want to come up with any other information, there was … there is no possibility of that. (Fiona)
Olivia had the same experience of writing a manuscript to a speech as Fiona and expressed that it was difficult to write an entire argumentative speech at once in a locked exam session. She had gotten time before the exam to think and reflect on the topic, but there was something about the exam that held her back: “You didn’t get any creativity when you wrote, or, you, you sometimes need to get a little, like, perspective I guess”. The diversity in terms of methods for writing was thus limited for Olivia.
Serena also said that it was difficult to have all the facts in front of her and then make something out of it. She preferred to be able to go back and forth in the text and have, as she called it: “a fluid process”. Serena wanted to add information and search for new things that she could use to make the manuscript better, but she lacked access to that. Meanwhile, Theodor said that the teacher had noticed that he needed more time and had bent the rules a bit, so he “was allowed to work a little on my own with it afterwards”, which he was thankful for.
You really immediately became like, now, now it’s a test. Now I’m going to write this. Then I’m going to leave here, then I’m not going to think about it – instead of kind of skipping around different ideas. (Olivia)
The students expressed quite strongly that they did not want to have locked exam systems and: “No one will have any motivation to go to school if you have to sit locked up for several hours and read. And write a text, as well” (Paul).
The students’ desire to manage their own writing process becomes evident in this material. Janks’ (2010) term power has, in light of AI, shifted from the writer of the text, that is the student, to the policy makers. The latter in this case are not primarily the teachers (one of the teachers who were mentioned in the interviews in one case abandoned the idea of locked exams to help a student) – but the Swedish National Agency of Education. Policy trumps the
5.4 Embracing AI in the Writing Process
The interviews showed that the students relied on and trusted the school and the teachers’ knowledge when it came to searching for and evaluating information as well as evaluating AI. The students expressed a willingness to learn more about the opportunities that AI can offer. Elliot, for example, wanted the school to adapt more to current technology: “Well, kind of actually teach students to use AI in a productive way” (Elliot).
Tristan also wanted to integrate the use of AI in school although he did not really know how that would be done and he described it as ‘old fashioned’ not to give students the chance to use AI: “It feels like AI will be everywhere. It feels stupid that, like, that we shouldn’t get … or that we should be, like, limited” (Tristan).
Now that it already exists, we know that we will be dragged along with it in the future and then it’s better, I think, that you get used to using it and maybe become good at using it instead of never being allowed to use it and know nothing about it. (Serena)
I think it is better to inform the students about the dangers of relying on an artificial intelligence or the dangers of relying only on one source or the dangers of letting someone else produce one’s text because it will not benefit you in the future. (…) Eh, so maybe highlight that instead of putting a lock on everything. (Hedda)
Like this: but what did you feel, what did you experience when you read this? What did you think of this piece? What did you think of this one? How did you think they wrote it? Was the message conveyed? (Filip)
The students’ wish for knowledge about AI is very much in accordance with Janks’ (2013) term access. The students said they wanted access to the tool which this new technology in the form of AI provides. They trusted their teachers and school to help them with access and saw this as something important for the future. They also suggested other types of examinations for the new era of more advanced AI technology.
6 Discussion
The findings in this interview study shed light on educational implications of AI on writing in Swedish L1, especially when it comes to students having power over their own writing process.
The interviewed students use AI as a source of information, in the same way as they would use for example Google. They also say they use AI for inspiration and as a study guide. With Janks’ (2013) terms access, power, diversity, and design/redesign in mind, the use of AI gives the students access to a new source of information, which not only gives them facts, but could also be used as a springboard for ideas. With access to the AI chatbots, this study shows that the students felt they could get help when they had run out of ideas. The students access to an AI “tutor” in combination with the diversity this gives them when it comes to learning is described as helpful by the students. In this respect, access to AI in the early stages of the writing process entails power to choose from whom the information should be gathered: the teacher, other students or an AI chatbot. AI, together with all the other sources of information, helps the students get ample opportunities to access knowledge and information so that they can integrate ideas and arguments made by others into their own writing process.
The study shows that artificial intelligence can provide tools for students to gain critical literacy and that Janks’ (2013) terms can be realised through this technology. However, this study also shows that using AI chatbots as a text generator is something that the students shun. Their process when creating
Locked exam situations, which are described by the students in the interviews, are a result of schools being required to making sure that examinations are designed in such a way that cheating (for instance submitting work written by someone or something else) is avoided. The recommendation to limit graded home assignments is explicitly expressed in policy documents (Skolverket, 2023). The policy is clear and schools are required to comply. However, this policy clashes with the students’ wishes, according to this study. The students’ sense of power in relation to their own ability to express themselves in writing was described by them as restrained. Not only did the students feel that their creativity was taken from them in a test situation, their essays and manuscripts to speeches were perceived by them as of lower quality. Due to the lack of power over their own writing process, the students’ own diversity was also not taken into account. One student wanted to read her manuscript out loud to hear what the speech would sound like. One student wanted to go back and forth between her written text and her information search. None of this could of course be done in an exam situation. Control over the writing process was important for the students in order to be able to create the texts they wanted. The writing process was described as halted in the exam room as well as the students’ feeling of agency and their sense of ownership of their own information process. This created a clash between the learning process and the graded product.
As writing is part of a literacy practice, creating literacy events like writing in locked examinations to stop students from copying texts from AI chatbots generates new policies and affects literacy practices where students are not allowed to search for information while writing. Even though students have always had opportunities to “cheat”, AI could be seen as something that potentially has pushed the evolution of examinations in school away from writing as a process to writing as a product. The process of writing is overlooked favouring the perceived authenticity of the students’ unprocessed texts. As a result of AI, a writing practice focusing on examinations has emerged, which does not correlate with the students’ desired writing process.
The findings of this study are in line with Marrone et al. (2022), Halaweh (2023) and Fidan and Gencel (2022), who see AI as something which could help students in their schoolwork. In a similar vein, this study shows that education in school is a negotiation between teachers and students about what
7 Conclusion
This study has focused on the role artificial intelligence (AI) plays in upper secondary school students’ descriptions of their writing practices and what opportunities and challenges emerge when it comes to AI in relation to writing in school. Findings indicate that the use of AI in students’ writing practices does not only provide students with an additional source of information, but can also create opportunities for using AI resources as a form of tutor and study guide, as well as additional input in relation to literature and a springboard for ideas. AI is, however, not described by the students as something they use for composing texts. The students express strongly that the texts they write need to be authentic, filled with emotions and creativity, something which they perceive an AI cannot provide.
The interviewed students’ descriptions show that they want power over their own texts. A challenge in relation to AI and students’ writing practices is that there seems to be a clash between practice and policy following the emergence of a new technology, in this case AI, where the students’ power of the desired text process is lost. The students also express a wish to incorporate AI in the educational system so that they can learn more about using the technology. By acknowledging that students use AI as a source of information and not a writer and allowing the students to incorporate AI in their writing process, schools can effectively teach students powerful knowledge about a crucial and emerging part of media and information literacy.
There needs to be a symmetry between policymakers, practitioners and students to bridge the gap that has emerged with AI and writing. Further research on how to incorporate AI chatbots as a tool in the writing process in school would shed more light on this new technology and its different possible uses.
Andersson, Y. (2024). Ungar & Medier 2023. Statens medieråd. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.10675.81440
Asplund, S.-B., Olin-Scheller, C., & Tanner, M. (2018). Under the teacher’s radar: Literacy practices in task-related smartphone use in the connected classroom. L1-Educational Studies in Language and Literature, 18, 1–26. https://doi.org/10.17239/L1ESLL-2018.18.01.03
Barton, C. (2019). Critical literacy in the post-truth media landscape. Policy Futures in Education, 17(8), 1024–1036. https://doi.org/10.1177/1478210319831569
Barton, D., & Lee, C. (2011). Literacy studies. In R. Wodak, B. Johnstone, & P. Kerswill (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of sociolinguistics (pp. 598–611). SAGE Publications Ltd. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446200957
Bråten, I., Brante, E. W., & Strømsø, H. I. (2019). Teaching sourcing in upper secondary school: A comprehensive sourcing intervention with follow-up data. Reading Research Quarterly, 54(4), 481–505. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.253
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Carlsson, U. (2014). Varför är medie- och informationskunnighet så viktigt? In U. Carlsson (Ed.), Medie- och informationskunnighet i Norden: En nyckel till demokrati och yttrandefrihet: Rapport från Nordiskt expertmöte i Stockholm den 2 oktober 2013 (pp. 11–16). Nordicom.
Fidan, M., & Gencel, N. (2022). Supporting the instructional videos with chatbot and peer feedback mechanisms in online learning: The effects on learning performance and intrinsic motivation. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 60(7), 1716–1741. https://doi.org/10.1177/07356331221077901
Gee, J. P. (2005). Semiotic social spaces and affinity spaces: From the age of mythology to today’s schools. In D. Barton & K. Tusting (Eds.), Beyond communities of practice: Language, power, and social context (pp. 214–232). Cambridge University Press.
Gee, J. P. (2008). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses (3rd ed.). Routledge.
Grigic Magnusson, A. (2022). Användning av mobiltelefoner i den digitaliserade skolan: Elevers och lärares perspektiv [Doctoral thesis, University of Gothenburg]. GUPEA. https://gupea.ub.gu.se/handle/2077/73855
Grizzle, A., Wilson, C., Tuazon, R., Cheung, C. K., Lau, J., Fischer, R., Gordon, D., Akyempong, K., Singh, J., Carr, P. R., Stewart, K., Tayie, S., Suraj, O., Jaakkola, M., Thésée, G., & Gulston, C. (2021). Media and information literate citizens: Think critically, click wisely! (2nd ed.). UNESCO.
Halaweh, M. (2023). ChatGPT in education: Strategies for responsible implementation. Contemporary Educational Technology, 15(2), Article ep421. https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/13036
Hämäläinen, E. K., Kiili, C., Räikkönen, E., & Marttunen, M. (2021). Students’ abilities to evaluate the credibility of online texts: The role of internet-specific epistemic justifications. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 37(5), 1409–1422. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12580
Haverkamp, Y. E., & Bråten, I. (2022). The role of strategic backtracking when reading digital informational text for understanding. Literacy Research and Instruction, 63(2), 176–191. https://doi.org/10.1080/19388071.2022.2155271
Janks, H. (2010). Literacy and power. Routledge.
Janks, H. (2013). Critical literacy in teaching and research. Education Inquiry, 4(2), 225–242. https://doi.org/10.3402/edui.v4i2.22071
Janks, H., Comber, B., & Hruby, G. G. (2019). Critical literacy and the importance of reading with and against a text. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 62(5), 561–564. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaal.941
Johansson, V., & Limberg, L. (2017). Seeking critical literacies in information practices: Reconceptualising critical literacy as situated and tool-mediated enactments of meaning. Information Research, 22(1), Article 1611. http://informationr.net/ir/22-1/colis/colis1611.html
Klafki, W. (2000). Didaktik analysis as the core of preparation of instruction. In I. Westbury, S. Hopmann, & K. Riquarts (Eds.), Teaching as a reflective practice: The German didaktik tradition (pp. 139–159). L. Erlbaum Associates.
Linderoth, J. (Director). (2023, June 8). Varför vi inte längre kan ha skrivna hemuppgifter i högre utbildning [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZOSh4ocpeI
Marrone, R., Taddeo, V., & Hill, G. (2022). Creativity and artificial intelligence—A student perspective. Journal of Intelligence, 10, Article 65. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1354204
Nemeth, U. (2021). Det kritiska uppdraget: Diskurser och praktiker i gymnasieskolans svenskundervisning [Doctoral thesis, Södertörn University]. DiVA. https://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:sh:diva-46491
Nygren, T., Folkeryd, J. W., Liberg, C., & Guath, M. (2020). Hur motiverar gymnasieelever sina bedömningar av trovärdiga och vilseledande digitala nyheter? Nordidactica: Journal of Humanities and Social Science Education, 10(2), 153–178. https://journals.lub.lu.se/nordidactica/article/view/21966/20804
Pahl, K., & Rowsell, J. (2012). Literacy and education: Understanding the new literacy studies in the classroom (2nd ed.). SAGE.
Parsons, B., & Curry, J. H. (2024). Can ChatGPT pass graduate-level instructional design assignments? Potential implications of artificial intelligence in education and a call to action. TechTrends, 68(1), 67–78. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-023-00912-3
Perrotta, C., & Selwyn, N. (2020). Deep learning goes to school: Toward a relational understanding of AI in education. Learning, Media and Technology, 45(3), 251–269. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2020.1686017
Rivano Eckerdal, J., & Sundin, O. (Eds.). (2014). Medie- och informationskunnighet i en biblioteks- och informationsvetenskaplig belysning. Svensk biblioteksförening. https://wwwbiblioteksfor.cdn.triggerfish.cloud/uploads/2017/01/mik-rapport-webb.pdf
Robson, C., & McCartan, K. (2016). Real world research: A resource for users of social research methods in applied settings (4th ed.). Wiley.
Skantz-Åberg, E., Lantz-Andersson, A., Lundin, M., & Williams, P. (2022). Teachers’ professional digital competence: An overview of conceptualisations in the literature. Cogent Education, 9(1), Article 2063224. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2022.2063224
Skolverket. (2022). Ämne—Svenska (Gymnasieskolan) [Curriculum]. https://www.skolverket.se/undervisning/gymnasieskolan/laroplan-program-och-amnen-i-gymnasieskolan/gymnasieprogrammen/amne?url=-996270488%2Fsyllabuscw%2Fjsp%2Fsubject.htm%3FsubjectCode%3DSVE%26version%3D8%26tos%3Dgy&sv.url=12.5dfee44715d35a5cdfa92a3
Skolverket. (2023, September 5). AI i skolan – risker och möjligheter. https://www.skolverket.se/om-oss/aktuellt/nyheter/nyheter/2023-09-05-ai-i-skolan---risker-och-mojligheter
Skolverket. (2024, February 16). Källmedvetenhet och digital kompetens. https://www.skolverket.se/larande-och-trygghet/skolbibliotek/genomfora-skolbiblioteksverksamhet/medie--och-informationskunnighet-och-digital-kompetens
Smutny, P., & Schreiberova, P. (2020). Chatbots for learning: A review of educational chatbots for the Facebook messenger. Computers & Education, 151, Article 103862. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103862
Weyergang, C., & Frønes, T. S. (2020). Å lese kritisk: Elevers vurderinger av teksters troverdighet og pålitelighet. In T. Stjern Frønes & F. Jensen (Eds.), Like muligheter til god leseforståelse? 20 år med lesing I PISA. (pp. 166–195). Universitetsforlaget. https://doi.org/10.18261/9788215040066-2020-07
Young, M. (2009). What are schools for? In H. Daniels, H. Lauder, J. Porter, & S. Hartshorn (Eds.), Knowledge, values and education policy: A critical perspective (pp. 11–18). Routledge.
Zawacki-Richter, O., Marín, V. I., Bond, M., & Gouverneur, F. (2019). Systematic review of research on artificial intelligence applications in higher education – where are the educators? International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 16(1), Article 39. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-019-0171-0