More than a year and a half after ChatGPT’s release, the Ministry of Education has finally announced an initiative to overhaul Taiwan’s education system to accommodate artificial intelligence (AI), and develop AI literacy among teachers and students. However, the concept of “literacy” is misleading. Generative AI, unlike any other previous technology, is a “general” technology that can create any content, and because of this, we need to shift our thinking from “literacy” to “fluency” to truly appreciate its power and its risks.
AI literacy involves understanding the basic concepts of AI, such as how it works, its applications and the potential risks. This foundational knowledge is essential, but it only scratches the surface.
AI fluency, on the other hand, requires a deeper engagement. It means not only knowing about AI, but also effectively incorporating AI tools into workflows to solve problems, generate appropriate responses and critically evaluate outputs.
However, in the context of education, moving from AI literacy to AI fluency would transform students from mere consumers of information into active participants in their learning process.
This is an important distinction. It means students would shift their roles from creators to evaluators, from writers to editors, and from individuals to copilots in their learning tasks.
Instead of researching then writing a report independently, the workflow of an AI user might look like this: They get information with or without AI, give the information to an AI and tell it what to do with the information (such as write an e-mail or a report), and then revise the output repeatedly with or without AI.
This transition from creator to cocreator/evaluator is crucial, as it implies that students are equipped with the skills to generate AI-driven content and, more importantly, to critically assess its quality and appropriateness. However, this is the challenge educators would face: How do we equip students with these skills?
For example, my business student would use the e-mail structure, model and tips I give them to tell ChatGPT to write a sales e-mail to a potential client. The AI quickly generates the e-mail in one-third of the time it would normally take my student, and the English would be grammatically correct. This is great.
However, the English might be too wordy, stylistically inappropriate, or lexically complex and flowery (often the case with ChatGPT output) that the frustrated potential client does not even finish reading it and deletes the e-mail. The inappropriate language style sabotages the very purpose of the e-mail. Unfortunately, the student is often unable to evaluate these important language nuances, and is therefore unable to evaluate the quality of the AI output.
The ability to critically evaluate AI-generated content is paramount. Even many high-level English users I know, including coworkers and professionals in various fields, struggle to recognize different styles of English writing and their impact on communication. This gap in skills highlights the necessity of teaching students not only how to use AI tools, but also how to analyze and refine the outputs.
In many ways, education has always faced this challenge. So, the challenge of education that accommodates AI is not new, but perhaps slightly more obfuscated. Students still need to acquire the knowledge and skills to plan the desired output of AI, communicate that to the AI, and evaluate and revise the AI output.
The danger is that by adding AI, educators would get used to seeing AI-polished outputs and might have little way of knowing if students are learning what they need to learn to judge its quality.
Unfortunately, from research I heard at a recent AI education conference at Ming Chuan University, many teachers allow students to use AI tools, but few actually teach students how to use them, let alone properly evaluate the output. My guess is that many teachers have no idea what an effective AI workflow is and how to develop AI fluency.
To be honest, I do not think many people have really figured this out yet. This is a new age in technology, work and education.
Of course, if AI fluency becomes a major goal for Taiwan’s education, it would demand a revolution. It would necessitate a shift in education goals from rote learning reproduction in an exam-based system to creative learning generation in a project-based or inquiry-based system, such as in Singapore’s education.
Perhaps there is hope. Perhaps generative AI would provide the disruptive opportunity to finally revolutionize Taiwan’s outdated industrial education system to make it catch up with the realities of the modern ever-changing workplace and AI’s rapidly expanding role in all facets of society.
At the very least, the initiative of Minister of Education Cheng Ying-yao (鄭英耀) would need to include comprehensive teacher training to ensure that educators not only understand the difference between AI literacy and AI fluency, but are also equipped with the skills and resources to train their students on AI workflows to enhance rather than diminish learning.
However, if the examination-based system remains intact and unchallenged, teachers would have little incentive to resist the perennial “teach to the test” pressures. The creative learning opportunities that generative AI offers for Taiwanese students and the future workforce would also be ignored.
Nigel P. Daly is a business communications instructor at the Taiwan External Trade Development Council’s International Trade Institute. He has a doctorate in English from National Taiwan Normal University.
In the US’ National Security Strategy (NSS) report released last month, US President Donald Trump offered his interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine. The “Trump Corollary,” presented on page 15, is a distinctly aggressive rebranding of the more than 200-year-old foreign policy position. Beyond reasserting the sovereignty of the western hemisphere against foreign intervention, the document centers on energy and strategic assets, and attempts to redraw the map of the geopolitical landscape more broadly. It is clear that Trump no longer sees the western hemisphere as a peaceful backyard, but rather as the frontier of a new Cold War. In particular,
When it became clear that the world was entering a new era with a radical change in the US’ global stance in US President Donald Trump’s second term, many in Taiwan were concerned about what this meant for the nation’s defense against China. Instability and disruption are dangerous. Chaos introduces unknowns. There was a sense that the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) might have a point with its tendency not to trust the US. The world order is certainly changing, but concerns about the implications for Taiwan of this disruption left many blind to how the same forces might also weaken
As the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) races toward its 2027 modernization goals, most analysts fixate on ship counts, missile ranges and artificial intelligence. Those metrics matter — but they obscure a deeper vulnerability. The true future of the PLA, and by extension Taiwan’s security, might hinge less on hardware than on whether the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) can preserve ideological loyalty inside its own armed forces. Iran’s 1979 revolution demonstrated how even a technologically advanced military can collapse when the social environment surrounding it shifts. That lesson has renewed relevance as fresh unrest shakes Iran today — and it should
As the new year dawns, Taiwan faces a range of external uncertainties that could impact the safety and prosperity of its people and reverberate in its politics. Here are a few key questions that could spill over into Taiwan in the year ahead. WILL THE AI BUBBLE POP? The global AI boom supported Taiwan’s significant economic expansion in 2025. Taiwan’s economy grew over 7 percent and set records for exports, imports, and trade surplus. There is a brewing debate among investors about whether the AI boom will carry forward into 2026. Skeptics warn that AI-led global equity markets are overvalued and overleveraged
RSS