Combining Information Literacy and Metaliteracy to Advance Transnational Group Learning about AI #ECIL2025

This is Sheila liveblogging on Combining Information Literacy and Metaliteracy to Advance Transnational Group Learning about AI. Learning Process and Learning Outcomes, Results from a Case Study authored by Joachim Griesbaum, Stefan Dreisiebner, Emina Adilović, Justyna Berniak-Woźny, Subarna Bhattacharya, Jini Jacob, Tom Mackey, Tessy Thadathil at the ECIL conference. It was presented by Mackey, Griesbaum and Dreisiebner. They are reporting results from an intercultural course part of the IPILM project, which involves institutions in India, Poland, Germany, USA, Austria and UAE. They noted that the course was worthwhile but demanding, requiring motivated students. The project https://ipil.blog.uni-hildesheim.de/ fosters intercultural learning whilst learning about information literacy and metaliteracy. It is an example of Collaborative Online International Learning which involve course co-creation, interactive learning, accessibility, and students based at the home institution. There is an explanation of COIL here). The course combines information literacy and metaliteracy in a seamless way. Learners work in team find synthesising content and evaluating tools they are using, the learners also have to reflect on themselves and their learning. Outcomes include critical thinking, knowledge production and collaboration.
The concept of IPILM involves the community (including the LMS and other collaborative tools), the learning cycle (course structure) and transnational groups (including learners from at least 2 locations). The idea emerged from the collaboration between universities in Germany and India, and developed in terms of course design (to have a winter and summer course) and to the different countries. This year there were 7 instructors, and 34 students from India, Poland, Germany, USA, Austria, UAE.
They onboard students, then there is the main part where the students collaborate and then a public online conference where the student groups present. The students, who are from different disciplinary backgrounds, are given some initial readings and then the collaborative knowledge construction starts. They build up their knowledge on the allocated topic then present and discuss interim results. Each group has to produce an artefact that addresses the problem and which is accessible to people outside academia. This is usually a video. There is iterative discussion and feedback and then the presentation.
The learning topics addressed by the groups all focused on AI this last time. e.g. AI impact on democracy; Politics; AI impact on local culture: presentations are here.
For their project they have research questions about the IPILM concept and the learning success of students. For the first aspect - they have run IPILM for 7 years and with no funding. They just did per and post surveys and asked learners to write reflections. They only had 1 student dropout after onboarding. The students said they were motivated. 10 out of 19 respondents had had group conflicts, which were addressed by course tutors. The learners judged course structure as good and teaching support as very good. For learning outcomes, they assessed IL and intercultural competency pre- and post-course. There was not a significant increase in IL but was in intercultural competence. This all seemed to show that the IPILM was feasible and enjoyed by the students.