Conference Agenda

The promotion of information literacy is a standard task at many university libraries and an important part of their range of services. Teaching information literacy at university libraries include research skills, skills for academic work and writing, digital literacy, data literacy, copyright literacy and skills for recognizing fake news and fake science. While course content and didactic methods have already been discussed many times, the focus of this contribution will be on the organizational structures of this core library task. For the promotion of information literacy in libraries to succeed, distinctive and clearly defined organizational structures are indispensable.

The German Rectors’ Conference emphasized the importance of governance as early as 2012 in its recommendations “Higher education institutions in a digital age: rethinking information competency – redirecting processes” (German Rectors Conference, 2012). This contribution analyses which organizational structures university libraries in Germany have now established to teach information literacy and which standards they use. The results of a quantitative survey are presented, on the basis of which it was investigated whether a department, a subject area, a working group or individuals are responsible for teaching information literacy, which tasks are performed and which management structures exist. It becomes clear that no organizational model has yet established itself in Germany and that many libraries work with internal standards or without any standardized guidelines at all.

These results form the basis for the “Recommendations on the organizational structure of the promotion of information literacy at university libraries” of the working group information literacy in the Bavarian Library Network (s. n., 2024), which also addresses the topics of course development documentation of course material as well as course evaluation and course review. The recommendations see transparent organizational structures with clear leadership (Kühl, 2017) and defined task prioritization, accompanied by further training, coaching and generally recognized information literacy standards as a clear success factor for the promotion of information literacy in university and library work.

References

German Rectors’ Conference (2012). Higher Education Institutions in a Digital Age: Rethinking information competency – redirecting processes. Retrieved 15 February, 2025 from https://www.hrk.de/resolutions-publications/resolutions/beschluss/detail/higher-education-institutions-in-a-digital-age-rethinking-information-competency-redirecting-proc

AG Informationskompetenz / Bibliotheksverbund Bayern (2024). Empfehlungen zur Organisationsstruktur für die Förderung von Informationskompetenz an den Universitäts- und Hochschulbibliotheken in Bayern. Retrieved 15 February, 2025 from https://www.informationskompetenz.de/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/AGIK-Empfehlungen_Organisationsstruktur_202405.pdf

See e.g. Kühl, S. (2017). Lateral Leading. A Very Brief Introduction to Power, Understanding and Trust. Princeton: Organizational Dialogue Press.

Our intention is to present the lines of development from the existing program of training courses and workshops in the field of literature research and information literacy to the new concept of training offers at the Library of the Helmut Schmidt University/University of the Federal Armed Forces Hamburg. This progress is significantly influenced by the results of a user survey and other evaluation methods, such as the number of participants in the training courses.

A description of the changes that AI has brought to the field of research and academic work will serve as a starting point. Working with AI and digital tools seems easy. As a result, information literacy is often no longer seen as a skill that students need to acquire. But students often lack an understanding of how these digital tools work, the opportunities they offer, and the risks they pose (Reinmann, 2023). To adapt our workshop program to these technological and social changes and needs in the academic context, we use the results of our evaluations and the AI competency framework for students (Miao, 2024). This will allow us to expand our workshop program for both students and academic staff, making it more attractive and user-oriented.

In the talk, we will present our current services. We will also share the results of the evaluation of our training courses and workshops over the past two years, as well as the results of the library user survey conducted in January 2025. In consideration of the results, we will present our plans for redesigning our offerings. We will expand our training offerings based on the skills mentioned in the Framework Information Literacy (Klingenberger, 2016). We will also share insights and initial lessons learned from the redesigned workshops.

In a fast-changing world, libraries, as institutions providing access to reliable information, must be early adaptors to technology change. Our assumption: The new workshop and training program is just the first step into the future.

References

ACRL. (2015). Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education. Chicago: Association of College & Research Libraries. Retrieved 29 January, 2025 from https://www.ala.org/sites/default/files/acrl/content/issues/infolit/framework1.pdf

Grahl, T. (2023). Kurs- und Beratungsangebot für Promovierende der Ingenieurwissenschaften an Hochschulen für angewandte Wissenschaften. Information – Wissenschaft & Praxis, 74(1): 42–50. https://doi.org/10.1515/iwp-2022-2250

Klingenberger, A. (2016). Referenzrahmen Informationskompetenz. Berlin: Deutscher Bibliotheksverband. Retrieved 29 January, 2025 from https://www.bibliotheksverband.de/sites/default/files/2020-12/Referenzrahmen_Informationskompetenz.pdf

Miao, F., & Shiohira, K. (2024). AI Competency Framework for Students. Paris: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. https://doi.org/10.54675/JKJB9835

Reinmann, G. (2023). Deskilling durch Künstliche Intelligenz? Potenzielle Kompetenzverluste als Herausforderung für die Hochschuldidaktik. Diskussionspapier Nr. 25. Berlin: Hochschulforum Digitalisierung. Retrieved January 29, 2025 from https://hochschulforumdigitalisierung.de/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/HFD_DP_25_Deskilling.pdf

Although Ray Oldenburg mentions libraries only briefly in his seminal work on defining the fluidity of public spaces at the end of the 20th century (Oldenburg, 1989), the idea that libraries act as third spaces has taken root in library and information science (LIS) literature. For example, the term “third space” was used in 364 scholarly journals, dissertations and theses and trade literature in the database Library & Information Science Collection between 1990-2024. While use of the term within the LIS literature includes reference to libraries as physical places, as, for example in Kawartani (2024) or Bouaamri and Ágnes (2024), much of literature applies the term to discuss libraries as hybrid and programmatic (Kranich, 2005).

Does the concept of “third space” extend to the electronic and digital realms of libraries, such as library web sites and digital libraries? Library web sites are themselves libraries of information. They provide information that refer users to the physical aspects of libraries, such as library spaces and their hours, physical collections, and the presence of human expertise. At the same time, library web sites contain information that was born to be included in them, such as tutorials, frequently asked questions (FAQs), access to the electronic content of library collections, to name just a few examples. To add to the fluidity of conceptualizing libraries as hybrid and programmatic “third spaces,” digital libraries are formal information systems, and computer scientists have theorized that they are spaces and have societies that interact with their spaces (Gonçalves, et al., 2024). We would like to propose that the concept of “third space” may be partially shifted to apply to libraries in the digital realm, broadly defined.

In discussing the overlap of the physical and the virtual in libraries, we will speculate on the sort of information literacy and communal networking libraries may be able to develop when we no longer access physical “third spaces”.

References

Bouaamri, A., & Ágnes, H. B. (2024). State of public libraries in Morocco. Library Management, 45(1): 1–20.

Gonçalves, M. A., Fox, E. A., Watson, L. T., & Kipp, N. A. (2004). Streams, structures, spaces, scenarios, societies (5S): A formal model for digital libraries. ACM Transactions on Information Systems, 22(2): 270–312.

Kawaratani, L. (2024). Social spaces. Library Journal, 149(11): 14.

Kranich, N. (2005). Civic Partnerships: The Role of Libraries in Promoting Civic Engagement. Resource Sharing & Information Networks, 18(1/2): 89–103.

Oldenburg, R. (1989). The Great Good Place: Cafés, Coffee Shops, Community Centers, Beauty Parlors, General Stores, Bars, Hangouts, and How They Get You Through the Day. Paragon House.

Library instruction and outreach programs commonly survey participants at the end of the class or outreach event to determine their attitudes to the session and what they have learned. Librarians use this information to decide what changes might be needed for future instruction opportunities and to contribute to broader assessment efforts. However, gathering this type of formative input has been challenging as we have observed a steep decline in student responses to these surveys in our library over the past 5-10 years. Similar declines have been observed across our university, and educational researchers around the world have also experienced a decline in student response rates (e. g., Possamai et al., 2024). Motivated to strengthen our programmatic assessment, our library research and learning department sought alternatives to traditional quantitative measures of the impact of library instruction and outreach. This presentation will share the three alternative assessment methods we used and will discuss the benefits and drawbacks of each of these methods.

Our library is part of a large, research-intensive university in the Western United States. Our library instruction and outreach program serves a diverse constituency including traditional undergraduates, returning nontraditional students, online students, graduate students, and faculty. We teach topics from basic information literacy concepts to advanced data management skills. Like other library instructors exploring assessment options (e. g., Luetkenhaus et al., 2015), we wanted to assess what students were learning, but we also had questions about the alignment of what we were teaching with broader curricular expectations. Gathering these insights was necessary to ground our understanding of the effectiveness of our instruction and outreach programs and to learn where changes might be needed.

We selected three sample focus areas of programmatic interest that cut across multiple aspects of our instruction and outreach work. We explored a range of alternative, qualitative methods for gathering feedback including focus groups, interviews, and document analysis. Most important was our selection of alternative stakeholders who could serve as proxies for the feedback we lacked from students. This presentation will describe three approaches for gathering programmatic assessment and how we translated what we learned into changes to our instruction and outreach practices. This presentation will describe and compare the qualitative assessment techniques used. Presenting a range of alternative programmatic assessment strategies will help others consider whether new ways of approaching assessment might benefit their library.

References

Luetkenhaus, H., Borrelli, S., & Johnson, C. (2015). First year course programmatic assessment: Final essay information literacy analysis. Reference & User Services Quarterly, 55(1): 49–60.

Possamai, A., Possamai-Inesedy, A., Corpuz, G., & Greenaway, E. (2024). Got sick of surveys or lack of social capital? An investigation on the effects of the COVID-19 lockdown on institutional surveying. The Australian Educational Researcher, 51(1): 21–39. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-022-00569-6

Information literacy encompasses the critical ways of thinking and acting that guide our interactions with information and our ability to create new knowledge. Many instructors expect that students will develop and demonstrate their information literacy through research assignments but are often frustrated with the results, because students (as novices) may be unfamiliar with disciplinary jargon and conventions that are mostly implicit to instructors (as disciplinary experts). Academic librarians have sought to bridge this gap by providing instruction directly to students, with mixed results. An alternative method, in which librarians offer professional development programming to teach the teachers how to integrate information literacy, is gaining increased attention, although assessment of the efficacy of these efforts is still limited (Smith, 1997; Cowan & Eva, 2016; Hammons, 2021).

Library staff at The Ohio State University have adopted this teach-the-teachers model and offer an information -literacy professional development workshop called Meaningful Inquiry. In this workshop, we introduce teachers to the ACRL Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education along with teaching strategies, such as Decoding the Disciplines and Transparency in Learning & Teaching (TILT), to help instructors clarify their research expectations for students. We believe that the ways of thinking and knowing articulated in the Framework remain part of a hidden curriculum for many students. Instructors develop assignments and expectations for performance based on these ways of thinking and knowing, but they are not always transparently taught or discussed with students.

Our presentation explores if this kind of library-led instructor development programming is effective for integrating information literacy into courses and/or curricula. We conducted semi-structured interviews with nine workshop participants, representing a range of disciplines, who received a grant to incorporate workshop content into a course redesign. We then coded the interview transcripts using Framework, including the descriptive text for each of the six information literacy threshold concepts, as well as the associated knowledge practices and dispositions. Through this analysis, we explore how instructors integrated information literacy into their courses after participating in Meaningful Inquiry, and which elements of the Framework align with the participants’ course revisions.

Our analysis revealed that participants considered information literacy to be a source of empowerment for students, helping them to be more confident in college and giving them marketable skills in their professional lives. In addition, many instructors felt empowered and reported transferring their learning to their other courses or initiating program- or curriculum-level conversations about information literacy. Our study suggests that the teach-the-teachers model can be an effective way to integrate information literacy into the curriculum.

References

Cowan, S., & Eva, N. C. (2016). Changing our aim: Infiltrating faculty with information literacy. Communications in Information Literacy, 10: 163–177.

Hammons, J. (2021). Teaching the teachers to teach information literacy: A literature review. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 46.

Smith, R. L. (1997). Philosophical shift: Teach the faculty to teach information literacy. Retrieved August 13, 2025 from https://www.ala.org/acrl/publications/whitepapers/nashville/smith

In our presentation, we introduce an information literacy service model developed at Laurea University of Applied Sciences. The service model promotes information and data literacy, research integrity, and open research, development, and innovation (open RDI).

The model is based on Annemaree Lloyd’s theory of the information literacy landscape. Lloyd (2006) explores information literacy in various contexts, such as higher education and the workplace. The approach involves conceptualizing the information landscape and building a knowledge base through interaction in different contexts. Information literacy arises from complex contextual practices, processes, and interactions that enable access to social, physical, and textual sources of information (Lloyd, 2006).

We have applied Lloyd’s theory to various information literacy landscapes in the context of higher education. In practice we provide personalized online guidance to learners, including university students and staff. Learners can schedule guidance sessions within their field of study, open RDI, or accessibility of information resources. The model guides researchers and development projects on research integrity, data protection, and data management.

Guidance sessions are customized to the learner’s readiness and needs and vary depending on the context. The aim is to target information literacy guidance activities more accurately and promptly to address learners’ practical challenges in various information landscapes and contexts. The service model is constantly evolving, and new themes are promptly integrated as required.

Emerging Themes in Information Literacy – AI, Data Management, and Citizen Science

New themes that broaden our service model include AI, data management, and citizen science. Recognizing and critically evaluating AI-created content has become an essential part of information literacy. AI can also be a useful tool in information retrieval, and we show students and staff how to use an AI-based information retrieval tool, Keenious.

In the contemporary academic and professional world, data management is a crucial skill. At our university, data management applies to both RDI work and theses. At the beginning of projects and theses, a data management plan is drawn up, and we offer support in its preparation.

From the perspective of open RDI, we began in late 2024 to explore our opportunities for supporting citizen science projects within our organization. By citizen science we refer to activities that involve the public in academic research (European Citizen Science Forum n.d.). In our study, we explore citizen science in Laurea’s RDI projects and the need for support to facilitate citizen science initiatives.

In our presentation, we will introduce our personalized guidance model in practice and discuss new themes in information literacy.

References

European Citizen Science Platform (n.d.) Retrieved January 23, 2025 from https://eu-citizen.science

Lloyd, A. (2006). Information literacy landscapes: an emerging picture. Journal of Documentation, 62(5): 570–583.