AI literacy instruction program in international school libraries: A qualitative study under the lens of the Big Six Information Literacy model

Abstract

School librarians instruct students in information literacy to help them search, assess, and use information. Generative AI (GenAI), like ChatGPT, has recently impressed users with rapid response time and detailed, intricate answers to complex problems through simple prompts. Thus, AI information-seeking technologies could significantly impact information literacy instructions at school libraries. This research uses a qualitative approach by interviewing librarians and students at an international school on their views on AI literacy instruction at schools. Results indicate that despite several drawbacks, students regard GenAI as a primary source of information searching. Therefore, librarians suggest fact-checking is essential when using GenAI for assignments and studies. Scant studies have examined the perception of international school librarians and students on AI literacy instruction at international schools, particularly in East Asia. Using the Big Six Information Literacy model, this paper attempts to fill a research gap by helping school librarians explore the critical elements of AI literacy instruction programs.

Keywords

Big Six Information Literacy model generative artificial intelligence information literacy International Baccalaureate school libraries

Introduction

Access to relevant, latest, and accurate information is essential for students to conduct study-related activities, especially for inquiry-based education in international schools (Majid et al., 2020). With recent ubiquitous information and communication technology, information is available almost anywhere, anytime (Dai and Chiu, 2023). Educators are also exploring innovative teaching approaches to equip students to become independent and lifelong learners (Hicks and Sinkinson, 2015). The current digital-native youth generation is more digitally competent in searching for information (Szymkowiak et al., 2021).

In November 2022, OpenAI introduced its chatbot ChatGPT to the public, which quickly captivated users with its remarkable speed of response and its ability to tackle complex inquiries. Its rapid generation of detailed and sophisticated answers from simple prompts impressed users. Within 2 months, an astounding 100 million users had registered to use the platform (Skopeliti and Milmo, 2023). Furthermore, ChatGPT’s apparent aptitude for engaging in creative endeavors has been hailed as a groundbreaking feature. It can compose college-level essays, devise curriculum plans, generate articles, emulate various poetic styles, write computer code, and much more (Bhullar et al., 2024; Murray, 2023).

Information literacy skills have become essential with the advancement of the Internet age (Spisak, 2020). Keeping students well-equipped with information literacy skills enables them to succeed academically beyond high school (Al-Qallaf and Aljiran, 2022; Smith et al., 2013). Researchers have extensively discussed the potential impact of ChatGPT on education, emphasizing the potential for students to utilize the tool for cheating (Johnson, 2023; Klein, 2023). Additionally, AI technologies for information search have the potential to significantly impact the media and information literacy instructions (Carroll and Borycz, 2024; Tiernan et al., 2023). Gaining insight into the disparate perspectives of school librarians and students on Generative AI (GenAI) technologies for information seeking is crucial to understanding the potential impacts on information literacy teaching among librarians (Bauld, 2023; Oddone et al., 2023). Using the Big Six information literacy model, this research attempts to help international school librarians develop and manage information literacy programs regarding the challenges of GenAI.

School librarians curate resources, teach information literacy, support educators, promote reading, and engage students in learning (Boyer and Kelly, 2014). Research has shown that students prefer online resources to seek information (Kim et al., 2011c). Nevertheless, students are weak in critically evaluating sources and selecting conceivable sources of information (Metzger et al., 2015). Students need “a comprehensive skill set to prepare them to leverage information abundance and diversity, and at the same time, enable them to differentiate between credible and dubious information” (Majid et al., 2020: 380). Information literacy skills have become increasingly crucial in the digital age because they increase critical thinking and help combat misinformation. (Spisak, 2020).

The term artificial intelligence was coined by John McCarthy and his team in 1955. With its pervasive presence in our daily lives, AI has become an essential technology widely integrated into various activities within the education realm. Librarians have traditionally played a crucial role in ensuring their communities have access to the latest technologies for information search and retrieval (George, 2023; Gul and Bano, 2019). Researchers also recognize librarians as essential in educating the public and students about AI (Cox, 2023; Finley, 2019; Huang et al., 2023; Ridley and Pawlick-Potts, 2021). Thus, the following research questions (RQ) guide this study:

RQ1. What are the perspectives of international school students and librarians in using AI for learning?

RQ2. What AI literacy skills should international school librarians develop and work on in future information literacy instruction?

RQ3. Using the Big Six Model, what key elements are necessary in AI literacy instruction programs developed by international school librarians?

Literature review

Students’ information literacy competences

Information has recently become ubiquitous and dilating; digital-native students have become more proficient in technology than a prior generation (Šorgo et al., 2017; Sparks et al., 2016; Spisak, 2020). However, they often cannot assess information according to accuracy, authority, objectivity, and coverage (Krecar et al., 2015; Smith et al., 2013; Spisak, 2022). Researchers recommended that information literacy skills are essential before students receive tertiary education (Dolenc and Šorgo, 2020; Smith et al., 2013).

Self-efficacy refers to a person’s confidence in their abilities to perform tasks (Bandura, 1997). Some studies indicated that many secondary students rate their self-efficacy in information literacy as high, but their performance is low (Molteni and Chan, 2015; Spisak, 2022), indicating that students overestimate their information literacy skills (Dolenc and Šorgo, 2020; Spisak, 2022). Thus, more information literacy instruction is necessary at schools so that students can distinguish between information and misinformation for more informed decisions in society (Ho et al., 2022, 2023).

Several studies point out that postsecondary students generally lack information literacy. First-year university students had difficulties meeting the requirements of undergraduate research assignments, lacked problem-solving and analytical abilities, and evaded ethical responsibility when relying heavily on Internet information (Correll, 2019). Furthermore, information literacy is essential for student learning, academic development, and becoming informed citizens (Al-Qallaf and Aljiran, 2022). Nevertheless, there is a distinct gap in information literacy competencies when secondary students enter universities, calling for strengthening information literacy education at schools.

GenAI and its impacts on learning at secondary schools

By leveraging Natural Language Processing (NLP), ChatGPT can generate distinct responses that mimic human text, enabling it to engage in conversations and create realistic natural dialogs (Tlili et al., 2023). What makes ChatGPT attractive is data and power (Deng and Lin, 2023). Due to its extensive datasets, ChatGPT exhibits greater diversity in tasks, such as generating intricate code, writing essays at a college level, and providing educational resources from a simple prompt. Secondary students in Hong Kong mainly use Poe for their study. (Woo et al., 2024). Poe is a platform aggregating AI chatbots, providing users access to multiple chatbot options, such as Open AI’s ChatGPT, GPT-4, GPT-4o; Anthopic’s Claude 3; and Google’s Gemini 1.5, etc. Other commonly used GenAI tools for learning and study are Perplexity and SciSpace.

However, the power of GenAI is still hindered by the unreliability of responses and limited information range (Tlili et al., 2023). It sometimes gives inaccurate replies or generates fictitious answers when faced with queries about which it lacks knowledge. These responses may sound plausible but are entirely fabricated (Tlili et al., 2023). GenAI tools do not often possess a genuine understanding of users’ questions and attempt to provide an answer based on probabilities (Bender et al., 2021). Consequently, it poses a challenge when using it to seek information due to unreliable responses.

The capability of ChatGPT to generate substantial amounts of unique text from a basic prompt has also raised worries about students using the technology to commit academic dishonesty. García-Peñalvo (2023) doubted genuine learning would take place when students’ assignments are predominantly facilitated by technology. Accordingly, text assignments have become outdated with the rise of freely accessible online information that can be copied and pasted without critical engagement or appropriate citation (García-Peñalvo, 2023).

Librarians, therefore, play a vital role in promoting AI literacy at schools by providing diverse resources, teaching information, and digital literacy, and collaborating with educators to integrate AI concepts into the curriculum. They facilitate discussions on ethical implications and create engaging learning activities (Diseiye et al., 2024; Ghosh et al., 2025). By equipping students with essential skills and knowledge, librarians prepare them to navigate the complexities of AI for learning.

International Baccalaureate and International Schools in Hong Kong

The International Baccalaureate (IB) is a non-government organization that provides four education programs to students aged 3–19 since 1968, namely, Primary Year Program (PYP) for primary school students, Middle Year Program (MYP), Diploma Program (IBDP), and Career-related Program (IBCP) for secondary school students. The IB programs promote “international mindedness in a global context through multilingualism, intercultural understanding, and global engagement” (Wright and Lee, 2019: 684).

IB Schools must apply the Approach to Learning (ATL) in teaching to develop students’ thinking, communication, research, self-management, and social skills (International Baccalaureate, n.d, a, n.d, b) Among those ATL skill sets, information literacy is crucial for MYP students to access, select, organize, and reference information (Ramli et al., 2021) It involves identifying points of view, bias, and weakness, using primary and secondary materials, connecting various sources, and referencing sources to respect intellectual property rights (Callens, 2021; Dulun and Lane, 2023).

The IBDP curriculum comprises six subject groups with three DP cores: Extended Essay (EE), Theory of Knowledge (TOK), and Creativity, Activity, and Services (CAS). Amongst those DP cores, EE requires students to demonstrate their information literacy skills. EE is “an independent piece of research, cumulating 4000-word paper” (International Baccalaureate, n.d, a, n.d, b). Students are expected to formulate research questions, develop a methodology, explore and communicate found information, and develop arguments and personal ideas while adhering to strict rules of academic honesty (International Baccalaureate, 2019). Students must conduct a literature review to demonstrate their information literacy competence by critically examining “the relevance, reliability, and validity of secondary source material” (International Baccalaureate, 2017: 16).

The International Baccalaureate (IB) has significantly influenced global education, especially in the Asia-Pacific region, which is experiencing rapid growth in IB schools, enhancing the social status of the global middle class (Lee et al., 2022). The IB’s emphasis on English as the medium of instruction opens pathways to prestigious universities. In Hong Kong, the English Schools Foundation (ESF), the largest English-medium international school organization, offers the IBMYP in two all-through schools and five secondary schools. Students can continue with the IBDP, IBCP, or BTEC in Years 12 and 13 (English Schools Foundation (ESF), n.d). Through this comprehensive curriculum, ESF not only prepares students for global citizenship but also aligns closely with the values and educational standards set by IB, fostering a seamless transition into higher learning and international opportunities.

Facing the challenges of GenAI on students’ academic integrity, ESF has issued guidelines for students and staff on the proper use of AI academically. The first strategy is agile: to embrace changes and adapt to the evolving needs of students and staff by continuously refining their AI-powered solutions and adopting emerging technologies (ESF, 2024). Secondly, ESF schools should deploy AI for teaching and learning responsibly and ethically so that all stakeholders can align with their understanding of technology and its implications (ESF, 2024). Last, ESF educators must be accountable for using GenAI in classrooms to ensure that they are used to enhance, rather than replace, human interaction and creativity (ESF, 2024).

Big Six Information Literacy Model

Information-seeking behavior models, such as Kuhlthau’s Information Search Process and Wilson’s model of Information Behavior, provide valuable insights into how individuals access and utilize information (Mondol, n.d). The Big Six Information Literacy Model is particularly effective for librarians teaching AI literacy. It helps students systematically approach information tasks, which is crucial when navigating complex AI topics. It also encourages critical thinking, information synthesis, and evaluation of information sources, which are essential in the AI context, where misinformation can be prevalent.

Mike Eisenberg and Bob Berkowitz developed the Big Six Information Literacy Model in 1990 (Eisenberg, 1997, 2003; Eisenberg and Berkowitz, 1990). It is a structured model for solving information problems. It combines information search and usage skills with technological tools in a systematic procedure to locate, utilize, apply, and assess information for particular needs and tasks (Heath and Sinclair, 2020; Kamba and Buba, 2022).

The model comprises six stages: Task Definition, Information Seeking Strategies, Location and Access, Use of Information, Synthesis, and Evaluation. Each stage emphasizes critical skills necessary for effective information processing (Siamak and Koltay, 2016). Studies highlight its adaptability across disciplines, from K-12 education to higher education and beyond, demonstrating its relevance in developing critical thinking and research skills (Eisenberg, 1997; Parissi et al., 2023).

Research indicates that educators who incorporate the Big Six Model into their curricula enhance students’ ability to navigate information-rich environments (Kuhlthau, 2004; Siamak and Koltay, 2016). For instance, a study by Kuhlthau (2004) associates the model with improved student engagement and learning outcomes, particularly in project-based learning scenarios. Additionally, the model’s emphasis on metacognition encourages learners to reflect on their information-seeking behaviors, fostering lifelong learning skills.

However, critiques of the model suggest a need for updates to address the complexities of the digital age, including the rise of misinformation and the necessity for AI literacy to create a more holistic approach to information literacy education (Anurogo et al., 2023; George, 2023).

Research gap

As reflected in the literature, while many studies focused on the weaknesses of students in assessing the information from the Internet and the role of AI on learning among students, scant studies mention the role of school librarians in guiding students to use GenAI properly, at least in line with IB curriculum and regulations. There is also a lack of studies on how GenAI affects information seeking among students for completing assignments and other learning activities, particularly in international schools in Hong Kong. Thus, this research aims to fill the important research gap in information science.

Methodology

Leddy & Ormrod (2020) suggest that interviews are probably the most productive data collection method, especially for qualitative research. As such, this research conducted semi-structured interviews to reveal more diversified information than responses to a questionnaire provided, especially for using emerging technologies. To allow interviewees to express their thoughts and feelings based on their own experiences and understandings, a free conversational interview also enables a more open, spontaneous, and instant exchange of ideas (Leung et al., 2020). The interview will feature follow-up questions to clarify participants’ answers and ensure that I will understand their ideas immediately.

Students from Year 12 taking different subjects were selected because of their extensive need to write essays to satisfy the IB requirements. Eight ESF Year 12 students (five males and three females) studying IBDP were selected for interviews to learn about their perceptions, needs, and challenges in using GenAI, including their understanding of the ethical application of using GenAI at ESF King George V School. Two ESF secondary school librarians were interviewed at ESF Sha Tin College and ESF King George V School to seek their ideas and experiences in instructing students on AI literacies or competencies. Table 1 summarizes the demographics of the respondents. This approach can triangulate the information obtained from the respondents.

Table 1.

Demographic table of respondents.

Year 12 students	Gender	Subjects taken for IBDP
S1	Female	History, Psychology, Mathematics, English, Spanish, Economics, Biology, Physical Education, Theory of Knowledge, Extended Essay, Creativity, Activities and Services
S2	Male	Mathematics, Business, Computer Science, English, French, PE, Physics, TOK, EE, CAS
S3	Male	Business, Mathematics, English, Chinese, Economics, PE, TOK, EE, CAS
S4	Male	Mathematics, Chinese, English, Economics, Computer Science, Physics, PE, TOK, EE, CAS
S5	Female	Design, Mathematics, Philosophy, History, German, PE, English, TOK, EE, CAS
S6	Female	Biology, Mathematics, English, Business, PE, Spanish, Chemistry, TOK, EE, CAS
S7	Male	Mathematics, English, PE, Business, Film Studies, Sport Science, Spanish, TOK, EE, CAS
S8	Male	Mathematics, Chinese, English, Chemistry, PE, Physics, Business, TOK, EE, CAS
Librarians	Gender	Major for undergraduate and postgraduate
L1	Female	Undergraduate: English & Comparative Literature
		Postgraduate: Library and Information Management
L2	Female	Undergraduate: Economics and Business Management
		Postgraduate: Information Management

The faculty-level ethics committee of the researchers approved this research. After getting the school principal’s consent, interviewees were recruited voluntarily through a school-wide announcement. Before the interviews, each interviewee was informed about the study and signed a consent form for being interviewed.

Two sets of open-ended questions were customized for librarians and Year 12 students, respectively (Appendices 1 and 2), to maintain consistency while catering to their differences. The interview data was coded by hand to reveal themes from librarians and students individually. To answer RQ1 and RQ2, we read and interpreted the raw interview data to develop themes without preconceived notions, enabling us to discover which AI literacy skills are essential for interacting with AI chatbots for learning and study.

To answer RQ3, when exploring critical elements in an AI literacy instruction program, it is better to follow information literacy models that inspire librarians or teachers on the best way to teach students how to search and interpret the information for problem-solving and inquiry (Heath and Sinclair, 2020). Regarding the Big Six Information Literacy model, the interview questions were set into six stages of the model to explore key elements of the AI instruction program from the perspectives of librarians and students. Their answers were thus coded and analyzed following each stage of the model to examine how school librarians apply the Big Six Information Literacy Model for AI instruction programs.

Findings and analysis

Perception of year 12 students on using GenAI for study (RQ1)

Appendix 3 shows the perception of Year 12 students and ESF librarians on using Gen AI for study. Some respondents learned about ChatGPT from social media, friends, and teachers. They generally used it for simple assignments and initially doubted its effectiveness. For example, S3 shared, “Using social media, I found out that ChatGPT being developed by OpenAI. . .I used it, tested it. . .I would assume it can’t do it, and I basically tested it for a while.” S6 shared, “The first time I used it was to help just answer areally simple question.” Nevertheless, some respondents found that GenAI tools are innovative and started using them for most assignments. For example, S2 explained, “I saw my friends using these GenAI tools. . .I thought it was a very convenient and smart resource to use. I use them in pretty much almost all school assignments.”

Usage experiences

Tables 2 and 3 summarizes the respondents’ usage of GenAI. Most respondents have used ChatGPT from Poe. N stands for the total number of interviewed students. They opined that Poe.com offers a collection of GenAI tools for them to try different tools and compare their potential to aid their study. Within Poe.com, they used Poe Assistant and Claude more to help them write English essays. Many also reported frequent usage of Perplexity, as they saw better results than Poe’s ChatGPT in disclosing the information sources. Yet, some have never heard of ChatGPT, and they were puzzled by the content generated by Poe due to a lack of information sources. They also used Grammarly to polish their writing, while some used Canvas and Adobe Firefly for image generation, editing, and presentation.

Table 2.

GenAI tools used by ESF Y12 students for study.

AI tools used for the study	Interviewees—students (n = 8)
ChatGPT from Poe	6
Poe Assistant	2
Claude	1
Perplexity	2
Grammarly	2
Canvas	1
Adobe Firefly	1

Table 3.

Summary of application of AI literacy instruction program guided by the Big Six Information Literacy Model.

Stages of Big Six Model	Main ideas of each stage	Application of an AI literacy instruction program among international school
1. Task definition	• Determine and Define the Problem: Do I understand what I need to do?	• Instruct students on what AI is
1. Task definition	• Identify the information needs: What essential information do I need about the topic?	• Identifying the learning goals of students about AI literacy• Introduce the academic honesty policy of IBDP
2. Information seeking strategies	• Determine source of information: Where should I begin my search for information? Consider both print and online sources, such as databases and encyclopedias.	• Let students understand how GenAI works and their potential bias
		• Teach students techniques for asking follow-up questions for AI prompts
	• Select the best source: Choose resources that are perceived as easy to use and highly useful.	• Teach students other credible sources of information, such as e-journals, databases, newspapers
		• Introduce students to effective searching strategies for information resources, like filters, Boolean operations
3. Location and access	• Locate Information Sources: Develop the skills to use indexes and search through various sources for information.	• Prompt Engineering: Teach students how to craft prompts that effectively guide AI to generate more useful and accurate answers
3. Location and access	• Find information: Identify the specific information needed and seek out sources that contain relevant content to meet users’ needs. Be sure to highlight and take notes as necessary.	• Suggest students use AI tools to gather information more reliably and ethically, such as Perplexity
4. Use of information	• Engage with the Information: Actively interact with the stored information related to the defined problem through reading, listening, and observing.	• Inspire students to refine their prompts; students should learn how to extract relevant information from complex AI outputs
		• Provide tasks, requiring students to paraphrase
	• Extract Information: Determine effective methods to filter and select the most important and relevant information from a large volume of data related to the identified issues.	• Summarize or quote information from various resources
5. Synthesis	• Organization of Information: Arrange the various sources into a cohesive format to achieve systematic results.	• Teach students a necessity to integrate answers from GenAI with other sources of information
		• Work with teachers to develop interdisciplinary projects that combine AI with subjects
	• Information Presentation: How should I present the information to my teacher to complete assignments? Have I noted all the sources for the bibliography?	• Gain practical insights into the capabilities and limitations of AI systems
6. Evaluation	• Evaluation of the Product: Users review the results to assess whether they effectively address the information research problem.	• Ask students to write reflective essays or presentations to assess their learning process, challenges faced and knowledge gained from GenAI
6. Evaluation	• Evaluation of the Process: Users evaluate the process to determine if it meets their information needs.

Respondents predominantly used GenAI to brainstorm ideas and generate questions for research tasks and other assignments. For example, S1 shared, “I mainly use ChatGPT to help brainstorm ideas for my assignments.” S7 explained, “For my EE, I wanted to come up with a question. . .So I could use information from that to generate a question.” Besides, they used GenAI to paraphrase their sentence, grammar check, and polish their writing. For instance, S3 said, “I needed to, like, rephrase my works, paraphrase it.” S5 remarked, “It can help reform sentences of my own words.”

Additionally, respondents would like to use GenAI to clarify some complicated concepts because the prompts could present simple definitions or explanations, enabling them to understand some theoretical ideas and search for more in-depth information. S2 commented, “I don’t understand a particular topic or definition. So I may ask the AI.” S4 reflected, “I asked the chatbot to give more in-depth sources. . .giving you precise content.”

Interestingly, they asked ChatGPT to create in-text citations and bibliographies, which they considered efficient in creating the correct bibliography format. For example, S1 shared, “I ask it to help with APA referencing sometimes.” S5 explained “I’ve used it. . .like bibliographies as well. . .It takes a lot of time, like writing bibliographies in APA format and then alphabetically sorting it.”

Perceived benefits of using GenAI for study

Most respondents agreed that GenAI tools are fast and convenient for information search. They could get a ready-to-use answer easily, directly, and immediately through interactive and personalized conversations. The answers were presented in bullet points with sub-headings, enabling them to interpret the ideas better. S4 believed “ChatGPT makes everything faster. . .you get whatever you want directly.” Similarly, S6 asserted, “I’ll be able to do all my research in one place and not have to go searching for a long time.”

Moreover, they perceived that GenAI could offer answers and analyze issues from various perspectives and sources, making it easier for them to understand complex concepts. S1 stated, “It’s beneficial because it analyzes information from several sources.” S8 mentioned, “For TOK (Theory of Knowledge), I would tell AI to help refine how the question works. . .ChatGPT helped me understand what the question was asking.”

Drawbacks of using GenAI for study

Respondents recognized that information on GenAI was too general and somehow offered irrelevant information. Thus, they sometimes did not use the answers for assignments. When ChatGPT could not help them, they turned to major search engines like Google and Google Scholar and online resources from the school library. Yet, some did not seek other learning resources and just worked independently. For instance, S3 explained, “Usually, it can give me very generic answers. . .I always specify what I need it for.” S4 expressed, “I searched on Google because I don’t trust the accuracy of chatbots.” Finally, S8 said, “Basically, I stopped using it. That’s how I overcome it.”

They also worried about GenAI providing fake information because they knew the limitations of such new technologies and would verify the answer by referring to academic journals and online resources. S2 stated, “I use AI very carefully because I know it’s not perfect right now, and there may be errors.” S4 described, “One downfall of GenAI is that it’s not always accurate compared to Google.” S8 complained, “It does give misinformation.”

Finally, they are concerned that using GenAI would violate the academic honesty of the schools and IB. None of them would directly copy the answers from GenAI for assignments because they wanted their work to be more authentic. A student raised an ethical concern: the convenience and speed of ChatGPT would drive them to rely on it more and become lazier. For example, S4 suggested, “If something is breaching academic honesty, then I shouldn’t do it.” Likewise, S7 remarked, “I am concerned about how many students end up generating whole essays from ChatGPT. . .it does reduce the integrity of other people’s work.”

Perception of ESF librarians on students’ usage of GenAI for study (RQ1)

Impressions on GenAI and its impact on information seeking

Librarian respondents generally doubted if the answers of GenAI were totally correct. However, they opined that it could be a great collaborative partner for learning because such unreliable answers would stimulate students to explore more and deeper. For instance, L1 expressed, “It’s not always the most reliable information. So already, the output is flawed.” L2 also believed, “We’re still going to need to check the accuracy and creditability of the source. . .They are using AI as a tool to extend the knowledge that they already have.”

Echoing students’ opinions, the librarians agreed that GenAI could explain and clarify concepts in a way that students would understand more easily, especially for those afraid of talking to their teachers. Besides, L1 expressed that Perplexity would be better than Poe’s ChatGPT due to its disclosure of the sources so that students could critically assess the relevance and accuracy of the answers. L1 explained, “I’m very acknowledged a lot of students use the AI because their teacher wasn’t able to explain. . .so that helped them break it down.”

Effects of GenAI on information literacy teaching among librarians

Librarian respondents opined that GenAI could largely impact their work on information literacy teaching. Due to students’ increasing reliance on it as a major source of information to complete their assignments, students must know how AI works, its shortcomings, and how to use it effectively and ethically. Thus, they should let students know GenAI would serve as just another tool for information searching, not always giving them a correct answer. For example, L1 shared, “You need to teach them how AI works, its shortcomings, and how to use it effectively.” L2 explained, “We know that ChatGPT is not 100% reliable or accurate. . .They need to be able to look at different perspectives of a topic.”

Besides, respondents believed they should enhance students’ awareness to verify the answers from GenAI by cross-referencing traditional resources, such as academic journals, books, and online learning databases. L1 added, “I would say verify not just with other websites, which they’ll be very used to, but also with books, with their teachers, or even what they learned in class.”

Moreover, librarians expressed the need to strengthen students’ concept of intellectual property. Although students should be alerted to the importance of citing AI as a source for their work, most students were uncertain about ESF and IB’s academic integrity policies regarding the use of AI. They roughly knew they could not copy the answer from GenAI directly but were unsure when and how they should cite AI, especially for grammar and spelling. L1 clarified, “Students are not even citing correctly because they don’t really know how to cite AI. They don’t even know if they have to cite AI.” S5 also mentioned, “Correct the grammar and spelling. . .I don’t think ChatGPT should be cited because it’s something I could do.”

Perspective of school librarians on developing AI literacy instruction (RQ2)

As AI tends to play more roles in education, students have to know how to use AI wisely and ethically (Ng et al., 2021; Rodríguez-García et al., 2020). It gives rise to the concept of AI literacy. Scholars mostly quote the definition of AI literacy from Magerko and Long (2020: 2): “We define AI literacy as a set of competencies that enables individuals to evaluate AI technologies critically; communicate and collaborate effectively with AI; and use AI as a tool online, at home, and in the workplace.”

However, the ability of ChatGPT and other GenAI technologies to produce extensive content from brief prompts has transformed our understanding of what AI can do (Zhao et al., 2024). There is a need to revise the idea of AI literacy. Academics started to concentrate on educating younger learners about AI knowledge and technology, emphasizing the importance of using AI ethically to address real-world issues (Ng et al., 2022).

According to Attewell (2023), students are worried that the answers to GenAI are less reliable and credible. They are also concerned about the shortcoming of over-reliance on GenAI. Although IB does not ban students from using GenAI for study, it reiterates AI is a starting point for research. Students have to identify if the answers of GenAI contain inherent bias (International Baccalaureate, 2023). Studies indicated that GenAI may not always offer a factually correct answer. Students are thus required to critically assess and check the validity and inconsistency of the answers (Cotton et al., 2023).

ESF librarians opined that students should acquire skills to evaluate information from GenAI tools and understand that GenAI is not a panacea. Students should know what datasets are used to train GenAI, as GenAI platforms often source information from open websites subject to public change of content without adequate governance. For example, L1 noted, “You need to tell students this is not a magic bullet. . . So, they will have to learn how to evaluate.” L2 also warned, “You need to fact check. . .We know there’s a lot of fake or inaccurate information.” Thus, the answers from GenAI may be rendered incorrect and contradictory, which some student respondents agreed with.

Besides, librarian respondents suggested enhancing students’ awareness of biased information from GenAI. Students should analyze the reliability of results and the effectiveness of algorithms while scrutinizing the inherent biases associated with using GenAI (Silva et al., 2023). By examining the information sources of GenAI content, students can interpret the information from various perspectives. For example, L1 explained, “Make sure you verify the information. . .maybe possibly checking its sources that it used.” L2 added, “ChatGPT was developed in Western cultures. So you know the information bias will be toward a certain perspective on any issue.”

Studies have indicated that GenAI cannot perform original research or generate novel ideas. The feedback from GenAI may not contain appropriate citations and references to the sources (Cotton et al., 2023; García-Peñalvo, 2023). Librarians should teach students to examine the sources and citations of the answers to GenAI. It is also a regulation of IBDP, which is regarded as cheating and plagiarism (International Baccalaureate, 2023): “If they use the text (or any other product) produced by an AI tool—be that by copying or paraphrasing that text or modifying an image—they must clearly reference the AI tool in the body of their work and add it to the bibliography.”

Finally, librarian respondents recognize the importance of prompting GenAI tactfully and ethically. Students generally remark the answers from GenAI are too vague and generic. It is necessary to prompt more specifically to get ideas for assignments. Librarians should suggest that students understand their information needs to personalize the answer. For example, L1 suggested, “Prompts can’t be too narrow; it can’t be too broad. And you have to make sure that your prompts give you as much information as possible.”

Suggested elements for AI literacy instruction programs (RQ3)

Critical thinking is a fundamental aspect of learning in the 21st century (Saleh, 2019; Sari and Wardhani, 2020). The information age demands that individuals engage more thoroughly with the information they encounter, and they should utilize reliable sources to make well-informed decisions, solve problems, and develop new insights (Smilansky, 2023). According to the interviews, participants extensively used AI chatbots as a source of information for assignments. As IB embraces the use of AI for assessment, school librarians should teach students to use GenAI effectively so that they would not easily commit plagiarism and academic misconduct.

Using the Big Six Model, this research provides a structured approach to ensure students understand AI and develop critical thinking and problem-solving skills related to GenAI technologies. Analyzed from the interviews, Table 3 summarizes the suggestions on how AI literacy programs can be organized and instructed for students, which helps add new knowledge to the Big Six Information Literacy Model:

Task definition

When librarians plan AI literacy programs, they should first teach students to determine and define the problems and identify their information needs. Students should ask questions like: “Do I understand what I need to do? What are the topics/questions I need to answer? What do I need to know about the topic?” (Eisenberg, 2003: 8; Kamba and Buba, 2022: 7).

Students should recognize the need for AI literacy and define their learning goals. In this stage, librarians would help students understand what AI is and its relevance to current and future societal contexts (Lo, 2024). Librarians should define specific and measurable goals for what students should learn about AI, including AI ethics, technology, application, and implications (Cox and Mazumdar, 2024).

Librarians can show students what AI literacy is by organizing workshops or presentations on AI technologies and their impacts across different sectors. Librarians should also explain the academic honesty policies of IBDP and ESF regarding GenAI. Instead of passive reception of information, ESF librarians adopt experiential learning for students to taste and use applications. For example, L1 shared, “I would probably give them a topic, and then I’ll ask them to put their prompts into AI. And then I’ll ask them if you can shout out what you got.”

As such, students can independently learn how GenAI generates an answer and explore its benefits and shortcomings. Moreover, librarians can teach students how neural networks function, the history and recent developments of AI technologies, the ethics of using AI in various sectors, and the impacts of AI on global economics, politics, and culture (Mannuru et al., 2023).

Information seeking strategies

According to Eisenberg and Berkowitz (1990), students identify where their information comes from. They are trained to broadly understand different information sources, including books and other media, and to select the most appropriate one (Iriani and Wicaksono, 2021). For example, students can ask: “Where can you start to look for information?· What are the best sources to use? They should probably choose sources with perceived value and user-friendliness” (Kamba and Buba, 2022: 7).

Librarians should also train students to identify other credible sources when planning AI literacy instruction. Most student respondents shared that they did not plan before asking GenAI and just believed asking follow-up questions to GenAI could narrow down their search, aligning with the findings of Svendsen and Garvey (2023). As those answers are not always correct, students should be encouraged to ask teachers and search for information from academic journals, books, newspapers, and official websites of various organizations and government departments before sending prompts to GenAI (Verma et al., 2023).

Librarians should also guide students in sending prompts more specifically. Students should be clear about their assignment information to avoid over-generic answers. When introducing other learning resources, librarians can guide students in developing effective searching strategies using keywords, Boolean operations, and filters. Consequently, students would not solely rely on GenAI but use diverse sources to obtain the information more comprehensively.

Location and access

In this stage, students should search for information stored in various sources. They should identify the required information and search for relevant sources to satisfy their information needs. They can highlight or take notes if necessary (Eisenberg and Berkowitz, 1990). Librarians have to ensure that students have access to the required information sources, whether physical or digital.

Prompt engineering directs GenAI to produce targeted, high-quality outputs (Cain, 2024; Walter, 2024). Despite AI chatbot’s aim at emulating human behavior, they still need detailed instructions to deliver more specific and relevant results for the users (Chang et al., 2023; Kuhail et al., 2023). It matched with the views of ESF librarians: teaching students how to craft prompts that effectively guide AI to generate more valuable and accurate answers that essentially improve students’ ability to retrieve information from AI systems.

Furthermore, librarians should suggest students use AI tools to gather information more reliably and ethically. Based on the opinions of ESF students and librarians, Perplexity seems to perform better than Poe because its answers provide users with the sources of information. Students can check if the results are correct and trustworthy. GenAI can be a customized resource for learning if students can master the skill of prompt engineering (Pesovski et al., 2024). They can proficiently interact with AI to locate and access the desired data.

Use of information

At this stage, students should engage with the information by reading, listening to it, or observing it. They then take, identify, and select the parts of the information that are important and relevant to solving the problems (Iriani and Wicaksono, 2021). They should ask for the information expected, what information from the source is valuable, and whether it is reliable.

To use the information from GenAI more productively, librarians can teach students to read and assess the information for credibility critically, relevance, and bias (Ferrara, 2024; Oloniruha et al., 2024). They should develop activities that encourage students to engage with actively. For example, by inspiring students to refine their prompts, students should learn how to extract relevant information from complex AI outputs. Librarians can also provide tasks requiring students to paraphrase, summarize, or quote information from various resources, such as academic articles, online resources, and GenAI (Koos and Wachsmann, 2023). Librarians should ensure students know proper citations and understand the content.

Students should tactfully take notes when using information from GenAI and other resources for assignments. Librarians can provide training on organizing information efficiently using tools like digital notebooks, reference management software, or spreadsheet templates for data collection from GenAI (Rodriguez and Mune, 2022). It helps enhance students’ information processing and organizing skills. Furthermore, librarians can help students develop their information needs academically (Derakhshan and Karimi, 2015; Mierzecka, 2018). Students can critically evaluate the information provided by GenAI while developing information needs. Hence, they can distinguish bias and misinformation from the answer of GenAI, which is crucial for responsible information use (Zhou et al., 2023)

Synthesis

It involves integrating information from various sources and creating something new or original based on such information (Eisenberg, 2003; Iriani and Wicaksono, 2021). After obtaining information from previous stages, students should combine, analyze, and organize it meaningfully. They should ask how to fit all the information together, write an outline of the project, and present the information to answer the question (Kamba and Buba, 2022).

Librarians should teach students to organize the information logically and coherently. Students should be alert to the limitations of GenAI. They have to consider other sources of information for completing their assignments, like books, academic articles, and online databases (Wang et al., 2023). They can also use the knowledge from teachers in classes. Thus, they can create a broader understanding and present a more comprehensive view of the topic by integrating various information.

Librarians can work with teachers to develop interdisciplinary projects that combine AI with subjects like economics and business. While allowing students to use AI for market analysis, librarians require students to use other resources to complete the projects. Providing an opportunity to integrate the information from GenAI and other sources enables students to share and combine their findings, perspectives, and insights (Kooli, 2023; Labadze et al., 2023). Students can thus apply their knowledge, experiment, and gain practical insights into the capabilities and limitations of AI systems (Chen et al., 2023a).

Evaluation

In the final stage, students assess the outcome and determine if it addresses the research problem effectively. They also evaluate whether the process fulfills their information requirements (Eisenberg, 2003). They should ask if they have solved the problem, the difference in performing subsequent similar tasks, and what they have learned (Kamba and Buba, 2022).

Librarian respondents stressed that students must know where GenAI sources their information because GenAI may use open sources, which are less reliable than traditional sources. Yet, student respondents expressed they rarely evaluate the impacts of GenAI on their research process. Thus, librarians should teach students to evaluate AI outputs to refine their prompts and strategies. Librarians can ask students to write reflective essays or presentations to assess their learning process, challenges faced, and knowledge gained from GenAI. It enables students to understand how effectively their prompts have guided AI to meet their information needs, enhancing their information retrieval skills (Chen et al., 2023b).

Discussion and suggestions

Based on the Big Six Model of Information Literacy, librarians should incorporate AI-specific competencies into the existing information literacy curriculum and instruction, such as evaluating AI-generated content, understanding AI search mechanisms, and using AI tools responsibly. This approach ensures AI literacy is not taught in isolation but is seamlessly woven into the broader information literacy framework that students are already familiar with. This study suggests the following key elements for an AI literacy instruction program among international school librarians:

Evaluation of AI-generated content

Librarians should teach students how to critically evaluate the accuracy, reliability, and credibility of information generated by AI tools like ChatGPT (Huang et al., 2023; Whalen and Mouza, 2023). They should develop evaluation criteria for students that consider factors such as the source of the GenAI model, the training data used, potential biases, and the overall quality and usefulness of the generated content.

Librarians can encourage students to compare AI-generated information with authoritative human-created sources, such as academic publications, reputable news agencies, and teachers’ opinions, to assess the validity and trustworthiness of the AI-generated content. They can provide students with AI-generated articles or essays on a specific topic and have them compare the content to authoritative human-created sources. Students can then evaluate the accuracy and reliability of the AI-generated information.

Understanding AI search bias and limitations

Librarians should educate students on how AI search algorithms and language models can have inherent biases based on their training data and design (Meyer et al., 2023). Librarians can demonstrate how to conduct the same search query on both AI-powered and traditional search engines. Students can thus compare and analyze the differences in the search results, identifying potential biases and limitations in the AI-powered search.

Librarians can move forward to develop strategies for combining AI tools with traditional search methods. Based on the interview with ESF librarians, this includes cross-referencing information from various sources and employing diverse search techniques to gather complete and more balanced datasets.

Promoting responsible and ethical use of GenAI

Librarians should establish guidelines and policies for the appropriate use of AI tools in research and academic work, emphasizing the importance of proper citations when using AI-generated content (AIContentfy.com, 2023). They should discuss with students the potential risks and implications of over-reliance on AI for information seeking, such as the spread of misinformation, lack of original thinking, and ethical concerns around plagiarism or academic dishonesty (Rane et al., 2023; Zhai et al., 2024).

Librarian respondents also encourage students to use AI tools responsibly, such as brainstorming, proofreading, or generating initial drafts, while maintaining a critical perspective and ensuring the final work is their own (Lo, 2023). As such, school librarians can create a comprehensive and adaptable AI literacy instruction program that empowers students to navigate the evolving information landscape with critical thinking, ethical decision-making, and responsible use of GenAI technologies.

Conclusion

This research employs the Big Six Model of Information Literacy to investigate how to design and implement an AI literacy instruction program for students. Librarians can incorporate regular feedback mechanisms through surveys and focus groups to adjust the program to meet students’ needs better (Weare, 2013). It helps students internalize their learning and understand their growth, boosting their engagement and commitment to the program. With the advent of the fourth industrial revolution, AI has gained immense popularity and widespread adoption across various industries (Culduz, 2024). This is primarily attributed to the exponential growth of data, advancements in algorithms, and enhancements in computing power and storage capabilities (Zhang and Chen, 2023).

Training librarians to deliver an AI literacy program may require a certain level of technical expertise. If librarians cannot keep up with AI concepts and technologies, they may face challenges in effectively teaching and supporting students in this area (Formanek, 2024; Harisanty et al., 2024). The school management should provide librarians with training workshops and professional development opportunities focused on AI technologies and teaching methodologies. Moreover, they can collaborate with experts in the field of AI to provide support and guidance to librarians during the program implementation (Enakrire and Oladokun, 2023; Mallikarjuna, 2024).

As for limitations, this research concentrates on the relationships between GenAI and student information-seeking activities. However, the applications and impacts of various AI technologies extend far beyond information-seeking. AI’s influence on school librarians’ role is multifaceted and complex (Kamalov et al., 2023; Yunus et al., 2023). Many further studies are necessary to cover all the possible ways AI affects the works and responsibilities of school librarians. The development of GenAI is swift, which places a significant limitation on the study (Du et al., 2024; Wu, 2023). Such rapid development also means that findings may be quickly outdated, requiring continuous research to cope with the latest AI development (Kaur et al., 2023)

Moreover, this research only focuses on ESF international schools in Hong Kong. Thus, future research can work on how GenAI affects information literacy instruction among schools in other regions. Besides the IBDP curriculum, more works can focus on other curricula, such as HKDSE, IGCSE, IBCP, BTEC, etc. With the increasing influence of AI on our daily lives, there has been a growing emphasis on AI education to empower students with knowledge, skills, and ethical understanding related to AI (Kong et al., 2022). Educators should always consider effective instructional design to enhance students’ AI literacy and competencies (Gameil and Al-Abdullatif, 2023).

Another limitation is that this research mainly focuses on school librarians’ role in AI literacy instruction. Nevertheless, librarians should work with subject teachers to integrate AI literacy into subject-specific curricula and explore more interdisciplinary project opportunities (Friesen et al., 2023). Librarians can work with subject teachers to design project-based learning experiences that involve AI applications. More future research can focus on how to encourage students to apply their knowledge, coming from both AI prompts and traditional resources, across multiple disciplines. By fostering teacher-librarian collaboration, it can create a vibrant and engaging AI literacy program that captivates students’ interest and promotes a deeper understanding of AI.

Footnotes

Appendix 1. Interview questions for students

Use and expectation of GenAI in general

Ethical Consideration of GenAI

Using the Big Six Model, what key elements should be included in AI literacy instruction programs developed by international school librarians in Hong Kong?

Appendix 2. Interview questions for school librarians

Overview of GenAI

AI literacy skills or competencies necessary for students equipped to study

Appendix 3 Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Dickson K. W. Chiu

Data availability

Data is available on reasonable request from the corresponding author

Author biographies

Mr. Eric Kwok Chun WONG graduated from the Faculty of Arts, The University of Hong Kong. He has more than fifteen years working experience in academic and school libraries. He is also a graduate of Master of Arts and Master of Library and Information Management, with distinction, from the University of Hong Kong. He is currently an Information Coordiantor at ESF King George V School.

References

AIContentfy.com (2023) The ethics of using AI writing tools. Available at: https://aicontentfy.com/en/blog/ethics-of-using-ai-writing-tools. Accessed 16 December 2024.

Al-Qallaf

Aljiran

(2022) The teaching and learning of information literacy skills among high school students: Are we there yet? International Information & Library Review 54(3): 225–241.

Anurogo

La Ramba

Putri

, et al (2023) Digital literacy 5.0 to enhance multicultural education. Multicultural Islamic Education Review 1(2): 109–179.

Attewell

(2023) Student Perceptions of GenAI. JISC National Centre for AI, Bristol. Available at: https://beta.jisc.ac.uk/reports/student-perceptions-of-generative-ai.

Bandura

(1997) Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control. New York, NY: Macmillan.

Bauld

(2023, August 31) Librarians can play a key role implementing artificial intelligence in schools. School Library Journal. https://www.slj.com/story/Librarians-Can-Play-a-Key-Role-Implementing-Artificial-Intelligence-in-Schools#articleComment

Bender

Gebru

McMillan-Major

, et al (2021) On the dangers of stochastic parrots: Can language models be too big? In: Proceedings of the 2021 ACM conference on fairness, accountability, and transparency, pp.610–623. DOI: 10.1145/3442188.3445922.

Bhullar

Joshi

Chugh

(2024) ChatGPT in higher education-a synthesis of the literature and a future research agenda. Education and Information Technologies 29(16): 21501–21522.

Boyer

Kelly

(2014) K-12 online and blended learning, school libraries, and school librarians. In Kennedy

Ferdig

(Eds), Handbook of Research on K-12 Online and Blending Learning. ETC Press, pp.455–474.

10.

Cain

(2024) Prompting change: Exploring prompt engineering in large language model AI and its potential to transform education. TechTrends 68(1): 47–57.

11.

Callens

JAB

(2021) Information literacy awareness within the diploma years programme of the International Baccalaureate. In: IASL conference proceedings. DOI: 10.29173/iasl7786.

12.

Carroll

Borycz

(2024) Integrating large language models and generative artificial intelligence tools into information literacy instruction. Journal of Academic Librarianship 50(4): 102899.

13.

Chang

Lin

MPC

Hajian

, et al (2023) Educational design principles of using AI chatbot that supports self-regulated learning in education: Goal setting, feedback, and personalization. Sustainability 15(17): 12921.

14.

Chen

Zhu

Díaz del Castillo

(2023b) Integrating GenAI in knowledge building. Computers & Education 5: 100184.

15.

Chen

Jensen

Albert

, et al (2023a) Artificial intelligence (AI) student assistants in the classroom: Designing chatbots to support student success. Information Systems Frontiers 25(1): 161–182.

16.

Correll

(2019) What do high school students know about information literacy? A case study of one university’s feeder schools. Pennsylvania Libraries Research & Practice 7(1): 25–37.

17.

Cotton

DRE

Cotton

Shipway

(2023) Chatting and cheating: Ensuring academic integrity in the era of ChatGPT. Innovations in Education and Teaching International 61(2): 228–239.

18.

Cox

(2023) How artificial intelligence might change academic library work: Applying the competencies literature and the theory of the professions. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 74(3): 367–380.

19.

Cox

Mazumdar

(2024) Defining artificial intelligence for librarians. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science 56(2): 330–340.

20.

Culduz

(2024) The 4th industrial revolution and its impact on entrepreneurial education. In: Naidoo

Verma

(Eds), Reshaping Entrepreneurial Education Within an Industry 4.0 Context. IGI Global, pp.166–188.

21.

Dai

Chiu

DKW

(2023) Impact of COVID-19 on reading behaviors and preferences: Investigating high school students and parents with the 5E instructional model. Library Hi Tech 41(6): 1631–1657.

22.

Deng

Lin

(2023) The benefits and challenges of ChatGPT: An overview. Frontiers in Computing and Intelligent Systems 2(2): 81–83.

23.

Derakhshan

Karimi

(2015) The interference of first language and second language acquisition. Theory and Practice in Language Studies 5(10): 2112.

24.

Diseiye

Ejiro Ukubeyinje

Oladokun

, et al (2024) Emerging technologies: Leveraging digital literacy for self-sufficiency among library professionals. Metaverse Basic and Applied Research 3: 59.

25.

Dolenc

Šorgo

(2020) Information literacy capabilities of lower secondary school students in Slovenia. Journal of Education and Research 113(5): 335–342.

26.

Niyato

Kang

, et al (2024) The Age of GenAI and AI-Generated Everything. New York City: IEEE Network. Available at: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2311.00947

27.

Dulun

Lane

(2023) Supporting critical thinking skills needed for the International Baccalaureate Diploma Programme: A content analysis of a national and two international education programs in Turkey. Thinking Skills and Creativity 47: 101211.

28.

Eisenberg

(2003) The Big6 Approach to Information and Technology Literacy. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3424860

29.

Eisenberg

(2003) Implementing information skills: Lessons learned from the Big6 approach to information problem-solving. School Libraries in Canada 22(4): 20–23.

30.

Eisenberg

(1997) Maximising the value of school web pages: An information problem-solving approach. Scan: The Journal for Educators 16(3): 34–38.

31.

Eisenberg

Berkowitz

(1990) Information Problem-Solving: The Big Six Skills Approach to Library & Information Skills Instruction. New York City: Ablex Publishing.

32.

Enakrire

Oladokun

(2023) Artificial Intelligence as an enabler of future library services: How prepared are librarians in African University Libraries. Library Hi Tech News 41(3): 1–5.

33.

English Schools Foundation (2024) [PowerPoint Slides] Ethical Integration of AI @ESF, Internal document, unpublished.

34.

English Schools Foundation (n.d) About ESF overview. Available at: https://www.esf.edu.hk/about-esf/

35.

Ferrara

(2024) Fairness and bias in artificial intelligence: A brief survey of sources, impacts, and mitigation strategies. Sci 6(1): 3.

36.

Finley

(2019) The democratization of artificial intelligence: One library’s approach. Information Technology and Libraries 38(1): 8–13.

37.

Formanek

(2024) Exploring the potential of large language models and generative artificial intelligence (GPT): Applications in Library and Information Science. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 09610006241241066.

38.

Friesen

Tanna

Roy

(2023) Artificial Intelligence in subject-specific library work: Trends, perspectives, and opportunities. Canadian Journal of Academic Librarianship 9: 1–26.

39.

Gameil

Al-Abdullatif

(2023) Using digital learning platforms to enhance the instructional design competencies and learning engagement of preservice teachers. Education Sciences 13(4): 334.

40.

García-Peñalvo

(2023) The perception of artificial intelligence in educational contexts after the launch of ChatGPT: Disruption or panic? Education in the Knowledge Society (EKS) 24: e31279.

41.

George

(2023) Preparing students for an AI-driven world: Rethinking curriculum and pedagogy in the age of artificial intelligence. Partners Universal Innovative Research Publication 1(2): 112–136.

42.

Ghosh

Sarkar

Roy

, et al (2025) Role of libraries in promoting digital literacy and information fluency. In: Navigating AI in Academic Libraries: Implications for Academic Research. Hershey, PA: IGI Global, pp.77–108.

43.

Gul

Bano

(2019) Smart libraries: An emerging and innovative technological habitat of 21st century. Electronic Library 37(5): 764–783.

44.

Harisanty

Anna

NEV

Putri

, et al (2024) Leaders, practitioners and scientists' awareness of artificial intelligence in libraries: A pilot study. Library Hi Tech 42(3): 809–825.

45.

Heath

Sinclair

(2020) The significance of information literacy instruction in the preparation of Jamaican students for tertiary studies. The UWI Quality Education Forum 24: 85–103.

46.

Hicks

Sinkinson

(2015) Critical connections: Personal learning environments and information literacy. Research in Learning Technology 23: 1–12.

47.

Chiu

, et al (2023) Fake news, misinformation and privacy: how the COVID-19 pandemic changes our society and how blockchain and distributed ledger technologies reduce their effects? Distributed Ledger Technologies: Research and Practice 3(3): 1–9.

48.

KKW

Chan

Chiu

DKW

(2022) Fake news and misinformation during the pandemic: What we know and what we do not know. IT Professional 24(2): 19–24.

49.

Huang

Cox

(2023) Artificial Intelligence in academic library strategy in the United Kingdom and the mainland of China. Journal of Academic Librarianship 49(6): 102772.

50.

International Baccalaureate (2017) Guide to Extended Essay. Zurich: International Baccalaureate Organization.

51.

International Baccalaureate (2019) Academic honesty. Available at: https://www.ibo.org/contentassets/76d2b6d4731f44ff800d0d06d371a892/academic-integrity-policy-english.pdf

52.

International Baccalaureate (2023) Academic integrity policy. Available at: https://www.ibo.org/globalassets/new-structure/programmes/shared-resources/pdfs/academic-integrity-policy-en.pdf

53.

International Baccalaureate (n.d, a) Learning and teaching. Available at: https://www.ibo.org/programmes/primary-years-programme/curriculum/learning-and-teaching/

54.

International Baccalaureate (n.d, b) Extended essay. Available at: https://www.ibo.org/programmes/diploma-programme/curriculum/dp-core/extended-essay/

55.

Iriani

Wicaksono

(2021) Application of the Big 6 skills model and information literacy skills for surveying subject at vocational school. IOP Conference Series Earth and Environmental Science 747(1): 012014.

56.

Johnson

(2023) ChatGPT in schools: Here’s where it’s banned—And how it could potentially help students. Forbes, 18 January. https://www.forbes.com/sites/ariannajohnson/2023/01/18/chatgpt-in-schools-heres-where-its-banned-and-how-it-could-potentially-help-students/

57.

Kamalov

Santandreu Calonge

Gurrib

(2023) New era of artificial intelligence in education: Towards a sustainable multifaceted revolution. Sustainability 15(16): 12451.

58.

Kamba

Buba

(2022) Application of the Big 6 skills model and information literacy skills of undergraduate students on the use of electronic resources in Nigarian Universities. Library Philosophy and Practice 7274. Available at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/7274

59.

Kaur

Gabrijelčič

Klobučar

(2023) Artificial intelligence for cybersecurity: Literature review and future research directions. Information Fusion 97: 101804.

60.

Kim

Yoo-Lee

Joanna Sin

(2011c) Social media as information source: Undergraduates’ use and evaluation behavior. Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology 48(1): 1–3.

61.

Klein

(2023) New York City blocks ChatGPT at schools. Should other districts follow? Education Week 42: 12–13.

62.

Kong

Cheung

WMY

Zhang

(2022) Evaluating artificial intelligence literacy courses for fostering conceptual learning, literacy and empowerment in university students: Refocusing to conceptual building. Computers in Human Behavior Reports 7: 100223.

63.

Kooli

(2023) Chatbots in education and research: A critical examination of ethical implications and solutions. Sustainability 15(7): 5614.

64.

Koos

Wachsmann

(2023) Navigating the impact of ChatGPT/GPT4 on legal academic examinations: Challenges, opportunities and recommendations. Media Iuris 6(2): 255–270.

65.

Krecar

Kolega

Krampus

(2015) Students’ perception and habits in choosing online literature sources for seminar papers. Literacy Information and Computer Education Journal 6(4): 2030–2038.

66.

Kuhail

Alturki

Alramlawi

, et al (2023) Interacting with educational chatbots: A systematic review. Education and Information Technologies 28(1): 973–1018.

67.

Kuhlthau

(2004) Seeking Meaning: A Process Approach to Library and Information Services, vol. 2. Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited.

68.

Leddy

Ormrod

(2020) Practical Research: Planning and Design. London: Pearson.

69.

Wright

Lee

(2019) Re/producing the global middle class: International Baccalaureate alumni at ‘world-class’ universities in Hong Kong. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 40(5), 682–696.

70.

Lee

Kim

Wright

(2022) The influx of International Baccalaureate (IB) programmes into local education systems in Hong Kong, Singapore, and South Korea. Educational Review 74(1): 131–150.

71.

Leung

Chiu

DKW

(2020) School librarians’ view of cooperation with public libraries: A win-win situation in Hong Kong. School Library Research 23(2): 1–17.

72.

(2023). The art and science of prompt engineering: A new literacy in the information age. Internet Reference Services Quarterly 27(4): 203–210.

73.

(2024) Transforming academic librarianship through AI reskilling: Insights from the GPT-4 exploration program. Journal of Academic Librarianship 50(3): 102883.

74.

Magerko

Long

(2020) What is AI literacy? Competencies and design considerations. In: Proceedings of the 2020 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems, pp.1–16. Association for Computing Machinery.

75.

Mannuru

Shahriar

Teel

, et al. (2023) Artificial intelligence in developing countries: The impact of generative artificial intelligence (AI) technologies for development. Information Development. https://doi.org/10.1177/02666669231200628

76.

Majid

Foo

Chang

(2020) Appraising information literacy skills of students in Singapore. Aslib Journal of Information Management 72(3): 379–394.

77.

Mallikarjuna

(2024) An analysis of integrating artificial intelligence in academic libraries. DESIDOC Journal of Library & Information Technology 44(2): 124–129.

78.

Metzger

Flanagin

Markov

, et al (2015) Believing the unbelievable: Understanding young people's information literacy beliefs and practices in the United States. Journal of Children and Media 9(3): 325–348.

79.

Meyer

Urbanowicz

Martin

PCN

, et al (2023) ChatGPT and large language models in academia: Opportunities and challenges. Biodata Mining 16(1): 20.

80.

Mierzecka

(2018) Students’ information needs and digital technologies in academic libraries. Przegląd Biblioteczny 86(4): 509–530.

81.

Molteni

Chan

(2015) Student confidence/overconfidence in the research process. Journal of Academic Librarianship 41(1): 2–8.

82.

Mondol

(n.d) Information seeking behavior model. OER Commons. Available at: https://oercommons.org/courseware/lesson/122892/overview

83.

Murray

(2023) ChatGPT in the English Classroom: 18 students test it and share their insights. Teaching and Learning Excellence through Scholarship 3(1): 1–20.

84.

DTK

Leung

JKL

Chu

SKW

, et al (2021) Conceptualizing AI literacy: An exploratory review. Computers & Education 2: 100041.

85.

DTK

Leung

JKL

, et al (2022) AI Literacy in K-16 Classrooms. Berlin: Springer International Publishing AG.

86.

Oddone

Garrison

Gagen-Spriggs

(2023) Navigating GenAI: The teacher librarian’s role in cultivating ethical and critical practices. Journal of the Australian Library and Information Association 73(1): 3–26.

87.

Oladokun

Emmanuel

(2024) Role of GenAI in publishing and librarianship: Addressing challenges and ethical dimensions. In Udofot

Wichi

Nsirim

et al. Digital Technologies and Library Management in Higher Institutions of Learning in Nigeria Harcourt: Chadick Printing Press, 166–179.

88.

Oloniruha

E. A.

Orubebe

E. D.

Oladokun

B. D.

(2024). Adoption and utilization of artificial intelligence in academic libraries: Challenges and opportunities in developed and developing nations. International Journal of Knowledge Content Development & Technology, 14(3). 1–13

89.

Parissi

Komis

Dumouchel

, et al (2023) How does students’ knowledge about information-seeking improve their behavior in solving information problems? Educational Process International Journal 12(1): 113–137.

90.

Pesovski

Santos

Henriques

, et al (2024) GenAI for customizable learning experiences. Sustainability 16(7): 3034.

91.

Ramli

Awang

Yusoff

(2021) Teacher readiness in applying ATL skills in the International Baccalaureate middle years programme schools. International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education (IJERE) 10(4): 1409–1416.

92.

Rane

Choudhary

Tawde

, et al (2023) ChatGPT is not capable of serving as an author: Ethical concerns and challenges of large language models in education. International Research Journal of Modernization in Engineering Technology and Science 5(10): 851–874.

93.

Ridley

Pawlick-Potts

(2021) Algorithmic literacy and the role for libraries. Information Technology and Libraries 40(2): 1–15.

94.

Rodríguez-García

Moreno-León

Román-González

, et al (2020) Introducing artificial intelligence fundamentals with LearningML: Artificial intelligence made easy. In: Eighth international conference on technological ecosystems for enhancing multiculturality, pp.18–20. DOI: 10.1145/3434780.3436705.

95.

Rodriguez

Mune

(2022) Uncoding library chatbots: Deploying a new virtual reference tool at the San Jose State University library. Reference Services Review 50(3/4): 392–405.

96.

Saleh

(2019) Critical thinking as a 21st century skill: Conceptions, implementation and challenges in the EFL classroom. European Journal of Foreign Language Teaching 4(1): 1–16.

97.

Sari

DMM

Wardhani

(2020) Critical thinking as learning and innovation skill in the 21st century. Journal of English Language and Pedagogy 3(2): 27–34.

98.

Siamak

Koltay

(2016) Using a new information literacy instruction model: A case study. Journal of Information Systems Management 6(2): 35–44.

99.

Silva

Mills

El-Ayoubi

, et al (2023) ChatGPT and GenAI Guidelines for Addressing Academic Integrity and Augmenting Pre-Existing Chatbots. In: Proceedings of the 2023 IEEE international conference on industrial technology, pp.1–6.

100.

Skopeliti

Milmo

(2023) ‘ChatGPT needs a huge amount of editing’: users’ views mixed on AI chatbot. The Guardian, 8 February. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/feb/08/chatgpt-users-views-ai-chatbot-essays-emails

101.

Smilansky

(2023) Data-driven decision making: How to use data to make more informed decisions. Thought Spot. Available at: https://www.thoughtspot.com/data-trends/best-practices/data-driven-decision-making

102.

Smith

Given

Julien

, et al (2013) Information literacy proficiency: Assessing the gap in high school students’ readiness for undergraduate academic work. Library & Information Science Research 35(2): 88–96.

103.

Šorgo

Bartol

Dolničar

, et al (2017) Attributes of digital natives as predictors of information literacy in higher education. British Journal of Educational Technology 48(3): 749–767.

104.

Sparks

Katz

Beile

(2016) Assessing digital information literacy in higher education: A review of existing frameworks and assessments with recommendations for next-generation assessment. ETS Research Report Series 2016(2): 1–33.

105.

Spisak

(2020) School librarian perceptions of the importance of information literacy. School Libraries Worldwide 28(1): 151–164.

106.

Spisak

(2022) Information literacy self-efficacy versus performance: Secondary students. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science 55(2): 348–357.

107.

Svendsen

Garvey

(2023) An outline for an interrogative/prompt library to help improve output quality from generative-AI datasets. Prompt library to help improve output quality from generative-AI datasets. DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.4495319.

108.

Szymkowiak

Melović

Dabić

, et al (2021) Information technology and Gen Z: The role of teachers, the internet. Technology and Society 65: 101565.

109.

Tiernan

Costello

Donlon

, et al (2023) Information and media literacy in the age of AI: Options for the future. Education Sciences 13(9): 906.

110.

Tlili

Shehata

Adarkwah

, et al (2023) What if the devil is my guardian angel: ChatGPT as a case study of using chatbots in education. Smart Learning Environments 10(1): 1–24.

111.

Verma

Campbell

Melville

, et al (2023) Navigating opportunities and challenges of artificial intelligence: ChatGPT and generative models in Science teacher education. Journal of Science Teacher Education 34(8): 793–798.

112.

Walter

(2024) Embracing the future of artificial intelligence in the classroom: The relevance of AI literacy, prompt engineering, and critical thinking in modern education. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education 21(1): 15.

113.

Wang

Lund

Marengo

, et al (2023) Exploring the potential impact of artificial intelligence (AI) on international students in higher education: GenAI, Chatbots, analytics, and international student success. Applied Sciences 13(11): 6716.

114.

Weare

(2013) Focus group research in the academic library: An overview of the methodology. Qualitative and Quantitative Methods in Libraries 2(1): 47–58.

115.

Whalen

Mouza

(2023) ChatGPT: Challenges, opportunities, and implications for teacher education. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education 23(1): 1–23.

116.

Woo

Wang

Guo

, et al (2024) Teaching EFL students to write with ChatGPT: Students’ motivation to learn, cognitive load, and satisfaction with the learning process. Education and Information Technologies 29(18): 24963–25028.

117.

(2023) Integrating GenAI in education: how ChatGPT brings challenges for future learning and teaching. Journal of Advances in Education Research 2(4): 6–10.

118.

Yunus

Nasir Ismail

Osman

(2023) Smart library themes and elements: A systematic literature review. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science 55(4): 175–971.

119.

Zhai

Wibowo

(2024) The effects of over-reliance on AI dialogue systems on students' cognitive abilities: A systematic review. Smart Learning Environments 11(1): 28.

120.

Zhang

Chen

(2023) Skill analysis of library and information science professionals. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science 57(1): 143–158.

121.

Zhao

Cox

Cai

(2024) ChatGPT and the digitisation of writing. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications 11(1): 1–9.

122.

Zhou

Zhang

Luo

, et al (2023) Synthetic lies: Understanding ai-generated misinformation and evaluating algorithmic and human solutions. In: Proceedings of the 2023 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems, pp.1–20.