Conference Agenda

The black box approach to algorithms, considered an accepted part of the professional discourse of librarians (Lloyd, 2019), casts them as harmful to the authenticity of information circulating in a society and potentially unknowable. Thus, it may be no surprise that librarians providing programs in information and digital literacies have been wary of the use of algorithmically driven tools and technologies in a professional context. However, university mandates since the end of 2022 mean that they have had to adapt quickly to the introduction of artificial intelligence (AI) tools, which have been actively used by students (JISC, 2024). In this context of rapidly changing technologies, how have librarians teaching information and digital literacies expressed their expertise to students through the products they have developed and to what extent does this expertise differ from that found in existing studies? These questions sit at the intersection of information literacy and information ethics.

Using the tool of the cultural-discursive arrangements of practice architectures (Mahon et al., 2017), this study analyses the Library Guides on AI developed as part of that mandate by Australian university librarians, and available online at the beginning of the academic year in February 2025. LibGuides are a key strategy in information literacy programs. This analysis identifies the approaches taken to AI tools in the context of student learning and information literacy and compares these expressions of professional knowledge with those in previous studies (see e.g. Johnston, 2023; Yerbury and Henninger, 2024). The findings show that, in spite of significant changes brought about by technology, and the movement towards the consideration of academic integrity in some universities, the LibGuides express the expertise of librarians in much the same way as demonstrated in previous studies. The principles emphasized in the LibGuides continue to be those of evaluation, especially identifying the dangers of bias, and of information that lacks authority.

However, a key shift in approach is in the focus of evaluation, now being on the work of the student in the majority of cases rather than on the sources a student might use and identification of mis and disinformation. This has implications for an understanding of the concept of information literacy as well as for policy and practice in the university. While it has always been acknowledged that information literacy has two aspects to it, the evaluation of information found to solve some kind of problem and the use of information technologies to communicate with others, researchers in information literacy have tended to emphasise the first. This study suggests that the dichotomy no longer holds, as the concern is now with the relationship between the information found, the technologies used to find it and the technologies and processes used to communicate it as new knowledge. In the context of the university, the focus may be shifting closer to a notion of academic integrity than to skills in information literacy, influencing the ways that the responsibilities and expertise for developing these knowledges in students is perceived. This could pave the way for a consideration of the relationship between information ethics and information literacy.

References

JISC Data Analytics (2024). Student Digital Experience Insights Survey 2023/24. Retrieved 31 January 2025 from https://repository.jisc.ac.uk/9646/1/DEI-2024-student-he-report.pdf

Johnston, N. (2023). The impact and management of mis/disinformation at university libraries in Australia. Journal of the Australian Library and Information Association, 72(3): 251–269. https://doi.org/10.1080/24750158.2023.2235646

Lloyd, A. (2019). Chasing Frankenstein’s monster: Information literacy in the black box society. Journal of Documentation, 75(6): 1475–1485. https://doi.org/10.1108/JD-02-2019-0035

Mahon, K., Kemmis, S., Francisco, S., & Lloyd, A. (2017). Introduction: Practice theory and the theory of practice architectures. In K. Mahon, S. Francisco, & S. Kemmis (Eds.), Exploring Education and Professional Practice (pp. 1–30). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-2219-7

Yerbury, H. & Henninger, M. (2024). Knowing and not knowing about algorithms. Journal of Documentation. https://doi.org/10.1108/JD-04-2024-0076

AI literacy is the capability to identify, understand, utilize, and critically evaluate artificial intelligence technologies and their effects (Jones, 2024). As artificial intelligence (AI) continues to transform industries (Wagner, 2021), including economics and business, equipping students with AI literacy has become a critical component of higher education (Adendorff, 2024). It is essential for students to thrive in an increasingly digital and data-driven world (Mansoor et al., 2024).

This study investigates the current state of AI literacy among university students in economics and business while exploring the potential role of academic librarians in fostering this literacy through resource provision, training, and collaborative initiatives. The research aims to address three key objectives: (1) assessing students’ current levels of AI knowledge, skills, and ethical awareness; (2) identifying barriers to AI adoption and application in academic and professional contexts; and (3) proposing actionable strategies for academic librarians to support AI literacy development. A mixed-methods approach was employed, combining quantitative and qualitative data collection through a structured questionnaire. The questionnaire was divided into six sections: demographic information, knowledge and awareness of AI, skills and application of AI tools, ethical and critical thinking, attitudes toward AI, and the role of academic librarians. It included Likert-scale items, multiple-choice questions, and open-ended responses to capture both measurable trends and nuanced insights.

The survey was conducted using convenience sampling among students at the Faculty of Economics and Business at the University of Zagreb. Expected results indicate that students possess better practical skills in using AI tools (e.g., ChatGPT), while their theoretical knowledge is more limited. Additionally, it is expected that ethical awareness and critical thinking about AI-related issues, such as bias and transparency, will be areas requiring further development. This research aims to explore the role of academic librarians in AI literacy, anticipating that students may be willing to engage with librarian-led initiatives to enhance their understanding and application of AI.

The outcomes of this research contribute to both academic and practical domains. Academically, it adds to the growing body of literature on AI literacy in higher education, particularly in the context of economics and business. Practically, it provides actionable recommendations for universities, librarians, and educators to enhance AI readiness among students. Key recommendations include integrating AI literacy modules into the curriculum, developing librarian-led training programs, and fostering collaboration between librarians, faculty, and students to create a supportive ecosystem for AI learning. By empowering students with AI literacy, this research underscores the transformative role librarians can play in preparing the next generation of professionals for the challenges and opportunities of the digital economy.

References

Adendorff, H. (2024). AI literacy: A critical component in 21st-century learning. University World News. Retrieved 22 August, 2025 from https://www.universityworldnews.com/post.php?story=20240902234739542.

Jones, B. (2024). AI literacy fundamentals: helping you join AI conversation. Data Literacy Press, 2024.

Mansoor, H. M. H., Bawazir, A., Alsabri, M. A., Alharbi, A., & Okela, A. H. (2024). Artificial intelligence literacy among university students: A comparative transnational survey. Frontiers in Communication, 9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2024.1478476.

Wagner, D. N. (2021). Economic AI Literacy: A Source of Competitive Advantage. In B. Christiansen & T. Škrinjarić (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Applied AI for International Business and Marketing Applications (pp. 135–152). IGI Global Scientific Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-7998-5077-9.ch008.

Introduction

In the digital age, the ability to effectively navigate and use online information, known as Information Problem Solving (IPS) competence, is crucial for academic success (e.g., Rowe et al., 2021) and addressing complex societal issues. However, higher education students often lack the necessary skills for effective information retrieval and analysis, leading to reliance on inaccurate or biased sources (e.g., Rosman et al., 2015; Zhou & Lam, 2019). While previous research has identified various instructional approaches, there is no widely accepted framework for designing IPS learning environments in higher education. This study aims to validate a set of seven evidence-based design principles for teaching IPS, derived from a systematic literature review, through the lens of library professionals.

Methods

Iemployed a mixed-methods approach using the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) framework (Davis, 1989), combining quantitative surveys and focus group discussions with 63 information specialists from Dutch research libraries and higher education institutions. The design principles under validation encompassed: (1) Learning Task, (2) Instruction, (3) Learning Activities, (4) Modeling, (5) Support, (6) Practice, and (7) Feedback. Participants evaluated these principles based on Perceived Ease of Use (PEU), Perceived Usefulness (PU), and Actual Use (AU).

Results

Results reveal significant variations in the applicability and implementation of these principles across different institutional contexts. While active learning activities were widely adopted, principles requiring sustained student engagement, such as practice and feedback, proved challenging to implement in traditional one-shot library instruction sessions. Information specialists embedded in the curriculum reported greater success in implementing authentic tasks and providing targeted support than those delivering standalone sessions. The study identified several systemic barriers, including limited curriculum integration opportunities, large class sizes, and time constraints.

Implications

The findings emphasize the need for systemic changes in integrating IPS instruction into higher education curricula. Recommendations include strengthening librarian-faculty collaboration, developing hybrid delivery models that combine in-person and online instruction, and investing in librarian professional development. This research bridges theory and practice by validating design principles with practitioners, contributing to evidence-informed strategies for IPS teaching and learning in higher education.

References

Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3): 319–340. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008

Rosman, T., Mayer, A. K., & Krampen, G. (2015). Combining self-assessments and achievement tests in information literacy assessment: empirical results and recommendations for practice. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 40(5): 740–754. https://doi.org/gcphvg

Rowe, J., Leuzinger, J., Hargis, C., & Harker, K. R. (2021). The impact of library instruction on undergraduate student success: A four-year study. College & Research Libraries, 82(1): 7. https://doi.org/gh75kc

Zhou, M., & Lam, K. K. L. (2019). Metacognitive scaffolding for online information search in K-12 and higher education settings: a systematic review. Educational Technology Research and Development, 67(6). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-019-09646-7

Information literacy is important for students as well as teachers (ACRL, 2015; AASL, 2018) and is a key competency for learners (Ranschaert, 2020). It has been found that classroom teachers do not have skills to meet their own information needs (Virkus & Mathieson, 2019) and have a limited understanding of information literacy instruction (Shonfeld, Aharony, & Nadel-Kritz, 2021). Botturi and Bretta (2022) tasked pre-service teachers with developing video instruction on how to conduct a search for credible information and found participants leaned on technical search skills. The current, in-progress study builds on this research by seeking to understand information-seeking behaviors of graduate students seeking state certification in school librarianship and asks:

1. Does direct instruction of information literacy strategies impact ability to teach the skill?

2. Do students show understanding of critical elements of information-seeking?

3. Does video quality differ between in- and pre-service school librarians?

Participants created a three- to five- minute video tutorial using screencasting software demonstrating search strategies to find credible information. Videos were submitted through a learning management system and will be analyzed using Ring & Brahm’s (2022) Rating Framework for the Quality of Video Explanations. Researchers hypothesize that graduate students are still developing advanced information-seeking skills and may rely on technical skills and known resources. The results of this study will inform and guide the practice of school librarianship graduate programs in developing curriculum that offers multiple opportunities to practice and scaffold skill development and demonstration.

References

American Association of School Librarians. (2018b). National School Library Standards for Learners, School Librarians, and School Libraries. Chicago: American Library Association.

American Library Association. (2015). The Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education. Retrieved 28 August, 2025 from https://www.ala.org/acrl/standards/ilframework

Botturi, L., & Beretta, C. (2022). Screencasting Information literacy. Insights in pre-service searching. Journal of Media Literacy Education, 14(3): 94–107. https://doi.org/10.23860/JMLE-2022-14-3-8

Ranschaert, R. (2020). Authority and carnival: Preservice teachers’ media literacy education in a time of truth decay. Educational Studies 56(5): 519–536.

Ring, M., & Brahm, T. (2022). A rating framework for the quality of video explanations. Tech Know Learn, 29, 2117–2151. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-022-09635-5

Shonfeld, M., Aharony, N., & Nadel-Kritz, N. (2021). Teachers’ perceived information literacy self-efficacy. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 54(3), 494–507. https://doi.org/10.1177/09610006211026950

Virkus, S., & Mathiesen, M. (2019). Information seeking behavior of primary school teachers in Estonia: An exploratory study. In In S. Kurbanoğlu et al. (Eds.), Information Literacy in Everyday Life, 6th European Conference on Information Literacy, ECIL 2018, Oulu, Finland, September 24-27, 2018: Revised Selected Papers. CCIS, vol. 989 (pp. 317–328). Cham: Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-13472-3_30

This contribution summarises selected preliminary results of exploratory research to draw attention to the specific educational needs of doctoral students in developing their information literacy. Doctoral students represent a unique group for information literacy education because they combine the needs of both students and academics. We must adapt educational activities to meet these needs if we want them to be effective and attractive, especially when doctoral students may perceive information literacy as supportive, not necessary, in terms of focusing on their specialisation. Although doctoral students represent a group with a high potential impact of information literacy education, research on their information literacy is limited, and research on their needs and requirements for information literacy education is even less frequent. Ateş et al. (2011) offered some general clues for the educational needs of doctoral students, but they did not focus on information literacy. However, it has been proven that a higher level of information literacy positively affects doctoral students: their publication activity, ability to obtain additional scholarships (Oyewo Adetola & Umoh Uwem, 2016), higher confidence in research (Daland, 2013) and, overall, further development of their academic career.

We selected results from broader diary-interview research exploring the copyright behaviour of doctoral students in social sciences and humanities. We focused on ways of finding solutions to information problem situations in their academic activities, as well as expectations, wishes, and experiences for developing competencies in this area. The research sample consisted of nine doctoral students from various study programs at Masaryk University, Czech Republic. The diary phase lasted one semester (spring 2024), and interviews (90-120 minutes) followed one to four weeks after finishing the diaries. We used inductive thematic analysis in Atlas.ti.

Preliminary results showed that the supervisor did not always have a strong position in finding solutions to their information problems. Doctoral students used a more diverse range of resources, among which the faculty library had a significant position. Doctoral students were often aware of their strengths and weaknesses in information literacy (without using this term). However, mainly due to time constraints, they were not interested in a systematic course or material but wanted help with a specific solution at a specific moment. By composing these solutions, they built typical procedures for solving similar situations, where they only slightly specified the procedure. At the same time, they built self-confidence in the given solution and did not revise their procedures. Revisions did not occur even in the case of an inappropriate solution (e.g., not verifying the licensing terms in a journal when publishing an article after experience with complicated understanding) unless there was a significant intervention (e.g., changing the use of AI after the university created a guideline). The presented results will be the basis for defined recommendations on how libraries should deliver the desired information literacy competencies to meet the needs and capabilities of doctoral students.

This work was supported by Masaryk University (CAREER RESTART: copyright behaviour of doctoral students in social sciences and humanities, grant number MUNI/R/1291/2023).

References

Ates, G., Hollander, K., Koltcheva, N., Krstic, S., & Parada, F. (2011). Eurodoc Survey I: The First Eurodoc Survey on Doctoral Candidates in Twelve European Countries. Brusel: Eurodoc. Retrieved January 28, 2025, from https://www.eurodoc.net/sites/default/files/attachments/2017/144/eurodocsurveyireport2011.pdf

Daland, H. (2013). The Ph.D.-candidate as an information literate resource: Developing research support and information literacy skills in an informal setting. LIBER Quarterly: The Journal of the Association of European Research Libraries, 23(2): 134 –155. Retrieved January 28, 2025 from https://liberquarterly.eu/article/view/10650

Oyewo, E. A., & Umoh, S. U. (2016). Information Literacy, Research, Scholarship and Publication: Comparative of PhD Students in Nigerian and South African Universities. IFLA. Retrieved January 28, 2025 from https://library.ifla.org/id/eprint/1510/1/145-oyewo-en.pdf