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). The pace of development of AI tools and their integration into everyday computing technologies such as word processing have already led to the claim that ChatGPT, launched in November 2022 “is old news” (Liu & Bridgeman, 2023).

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 expressed by participants in recent studies on information and digital literacies carried out in Australia. 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 conducted by the researchers from 2022 (see eg Johnston, 2023; Yerbury and Henninger, 2024).

The findings show that, in spite of significant changes brought about by technology, the LibGuides express the expertise of librarians in much the same way as demonstrated in the previous studies. The principles emphasised 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 IL 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.

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.

Liu, D. & Bridgeman, A. (2023). ChatGPT is old news: How do we assess in the age of AI writing co-pilots? University of Sydney, Teaching Tips, 8 June. Retrieved from https://educational-innovation.sydney.edu.au/teaching@sydney/chatgpt-is-old-news-how-do-we-assess-in-the-age-of-ai-writing-co-pilots/

Lloyd, A. (2019). Chasing Frankenstein’s monster: Information literacy in the black box society, Journal of Documentation, 75(6), 1475–1485.

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

This study assesses generative AI literacy (GenAI) among economics and business students (N=91) at the University of Zagreb, evaluating five domains: knowledge & awareness, application skills, ethical/critical thinking, attitudes, and perceives learning needs via a mixed-methods questionnaire. Results show that while 92.3 % regularly use AI tools, students’ practical proficiencies far outpace their conceptual understanding (only 40% grasp AI’s business applications) and ethical awareness (19% recognize core AI-related risks). Moreover, 98% have never consulted librarians for AI support and 65% are uninterested in librarian-led workshops, underscoring a missed opportunity. These findings point to targeted, librarian-facilitated programs to bridge theoretical gaps and foster deeper ethical and critical reflection.

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

The study employed 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. In Educational Technology Research and Development (Vol. 67, Issue 6). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-019-09646-7

Information literacy is extremely important for students and teachers (ACRL, 2015, AASL, 2018), and is a key competency for learners (Ranschaert, 2020). However, it has been found that classroom teachers do not have skills to meet their own information needs (Burchard & Myers, 2019, Virkus & Mathieson, 2019). Teachers also have a limited understanding regarding information literacy instruction (Shonfeld, Aharony, & Nadel-Kritz, 2021). In a previous study, pre-service teachers were tasked with providing instruction on how to conduct a search using the internet and not databases to find credible information. These individuals were classified as novices in that they had had limited instruction and experience on independent information-seeking strategies (Botturi & Beretta, 2022). In the current study, the focus is on graduate students in school library science. These in-service teachers have had initial instruction in information-seeking and how to identify credible sources. In this study, we ask whether formal information-seeking instruction has been impactful and demonstrable. Students have been asked to create a three- to five- minute video using screen casting software to show learners how to perfom a search to find reliable, credible information that is authoritative and accurate. Videos were created and submitted via a learning management system, and analyzed using qualitative analysis to ascertain whether the skills exhibited represent understanding of the critical elements of information-seeking. The videos were also analyzed for students’ ability to convey the skills necessary to find credible information sources for the stated need. The study will be concluded in the near future, but the preliminary results seem to show uneven understanding of competent information-seeking.

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

American Library Association, Chicago (2015). The framework for information literacy for higher education. 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

Burchard, M. S., & Myers, S. K. (2019). Early information literacy experience matters to self-efficacy and performance outcomes in teacher education. Journal of College Reading and Learning, 49(2), 115–128. doi:10.1080/10790195.2019.1582372

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

Shonfeld, M., Aharony, N., and Nadel-Kritz, N. (2021). Teachers’ perceived information literacy self-efficacy. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1177/09610006211026950.

Virkus, S., & Mathiesen, M. (2019). Information seeking behavior of primary school teachers in Estonia: An exploratory study. In S. Kurbanoğlu, S. Špiranec, Y. Ünal, J. Boustany, M. L. Huotari, E. Grassian, D. Mizrachi, & L. Roy (Eds.), Information Literacy in Everyday Life 989 317–328 Springer International Publishing.

This contribution summarizes selected preliminary results of exploratory research with the aim of drawing attention to the specific educational needs of doctoral students in developing their information literacy. Doctoral students represent a specific 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 specialization. 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, which could be specific because students. 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, and 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. 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 have a strong position in finding solutions to their information problems, but 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).

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