Reframing Information Literacy Instruction through a Lens of Knowledge Justice #LILAC26

The last session I'm attending final session today at the LILAC information literacy conference is Reframing Information Literacy Instruction through a Lens of Knowledge Justice presented by Heather Campbell and Ashley McKeown (Western University, Canada). The abstract is here This is a liveblog, so this is just my rushed impression of this rich session.

The presenters started by recognising the traditional holders of the lands that their university stands on, and identifying themselves as white settlers in Canada, and they shared aspects of their identity and positionality. They talked about the Canadian Truth and Reconciliation Commission and the responsibilities it brings for decolonisation. They cited "We must make space to balance generate and enable diverse knowledge systems to thrive". They talked about the work being done in the nursing profession (as Ashley is a nurse educator) to decolonise and critique figures such as Florence Nightingale. The coauthor Lea Sansom also introduced herself via video.
The went on to talk about how Ashley and Heather collaborated on teaching and learning, following on from Ashley discovering the university's Library Curriculum https://www.lib.uwo.ca/teaching/curriculum.html. This collaboration has resulted in the Knowledge Justice in the Helping Professions learning resource, currently an open resource, https://ecampusontario.pressbooks.pub/epistemicjusticeoer/

They defined epistemic injustice [if I can find this definition in their book I will insert it later] and talked further on how there can be epistemic injustice even within that field of study, encouraging us to think about who we cite, who isn't being cited, whose voice is being promoted or supressed. When teaching undergraduates they use AI and social media as teaching tools, and they gave an example of 2 videos that show how gen AI is biased when prompted for images of people with autism. This leads into debates e.g. of where are people's stories being shared, what are the sources that are contributing to the bias within a specific discipline. The presenters then shared a clip from a video on Epistemic injustice in health and medicine. This video provides a stimulus for learners to share examples of epistemic injustice.
Following on from that, the presenters talked about the importance of questioning who conducts academic research, whose voices are represented in the academy (e.g. on editorial boards) and who has power in authorising knowledge and knowers.
Then they talked about how they do talk about the words epistemology, ontology and axiology (particularly with faculty). Heather said that she spends more of her time teaching faculty, in addition to teaching students. Prompt questions for faculty include - what is the origin of your discipline, what does knowledge mean in your discipline, who is seen in the field. The presenters showed a list of types of knowledge (including ancestral knowledge, letters, ceremony, plants, water, as well as journals etc.) and ask people to reflect on which type of knowledge is acknowledged in their field. This leads on to asking people to reflect on the edges of their discipline's knowledge and their relationship with multiple ways of knowing and knowledge justice. The presenters also teach people about approaching knowledge seeking with humility.
Ashley talked about how she asks her students to interrogate what is meant by "best evidence" (troubling both words - best and evidence), and use case studies (each of which has an ethical conundrum). For an assignment she asks students to pick a case study and then generate a diverse list of references that could guide practice for this case. They encourage people to look for "voices" not "sources", focusing on (in their search) balancing lived experience, academic research and "arms length observers".
Something there wasn't time for in the presentation was talking about searching (e.g. adjusting your language to find a wider range of voices). Then they played a clip from a video from Lea about evaluating material critically using a knowledge justice lens, using a "framework of harms" (do they have potential for harm embedded in them). This is applied to all types of information. Lea also gave an example of when a faculty member had said she didn't want Lea to take a knowledge justice approach in a teaching session. However, Lea was still was able to introduce relevant questions into the teaching and bring in discussion of the different types of online harm. She noted that the students were in this case prepared for this type of discussion (e.g. they felt safe to share thoughts), which might not always be the case, also the faculty member felt that the teaching goals had been met.
The presenters finished by presenting some of the feedback from learners.
Photo by Sheila Webber: magnolia tree, Sheffield Botanic Gardens, March 2026

Starting, scrapping, and rebuilding AI literacy at Sussex #LILAC26

This is my first blog post for the 2nd day of the LILAC information literacy conference is From workshop to workshop: Starting, scrapping, and rebuilding AI literacy at Sussex presented by Nicholas Heavey (University of Sussex, UK). The abstract is here
Heavey said that initial initiatives felt a bit piecemeal, so they first identified a framework to help map skills across the curriculum. They decided to use UNESCO's framework for AI competency. This has 3 progression levels and 4 competency aspects. This helped them to see where gaps were, what they needed to cover and what they didn't. As this framework was designed for schools, they also mapped it to the UK's QAA HE framework, which gave a roadmap and helped to break this down for session aims and learning outcomes. Also it gave legitimacy when they went to talk to academics.
Heavey said that the first workshops didn't go quite as planned but gave useful insights into how students were actually using AI & what they needed. The library team went on to a dialogic and problem based approach, e.g. asking learners iteratively using prompts to see what happens and develop effective prompting techniques.
Looking at what worked at what didn't - early workshops were too technical, overloading learners with detail they didn't need. Therefore they turned to a more experiential learning approach, with more time to reflect. Secondly, they noticed that learners were anxious about AI e.g. not wanting to use it in a way that would make them discredited. Therefore it important to have open conversations, not being the assessment police and also not overstating the case against AI. Thirdly they have introduced more playful elements, e.g. using lower stakes activites/ tools to encourage experimentation. Two of their main sessions are: Questioning & prompting and Chatting and searching.
Heavey identified that sessions are structured around the brain vs AI (so thinking about what just uses the brain, what uses LLMs, how can you effectively use LLMs to assist) "LLM and research tasks emphasise the value and importance of researching and writing". The focus is on learning and understanding and they ask the learners to think of themselves as researchers. They explain key concepts through analogies and metaphors, which can be used to stimulate discussion. They also remind learners that they are responsible for any AI generated material. They ask people to reflect on whether the response from AI is changing the question they are asking - whether it actually answers the question they are posing.
The team use the CLEAR framework for AI prompts (example explanation here). Heavey presented a diagram to do with tool choice with more creative at one end and less creative at the other.
They use a three level model - introduction; Critical AI skills; and (not developed yet!) Advanced AI applications. They have also collaborated with teaching faculty (which sounded like a good collaboration with co-design and co-teaching), and gave an example of collaboration with Law where students took on the role of trainee solicitors (they undertook an authentic task, evaluated LLM outputs and reflected on professional ansd ethical implications). This was embedding traditional and AI research skills together.
In conclusion, Heavey saw this as an opportunity, as academics and learners are looking for support, and librarians can show how they can help.
Photo by Sheila Webber: not AI generated - magnolia tree in Sheffield Botanic Gardens, March 2026.

Breaking through the noise: exploring the role of social media content creators for fitness information literacies, Laura Williams. #Lilac26

 Pam McKinney here, live-blogging from the first day of the Lilac Conference in Sheffield. Laura Williams is a PhD in our home department, the School of Information, Journalism and Communication. Laura started her PhD research in 2020 and is undertaking it part-time while working as a librarian. The theme of Laura's doctoral research is ultra-running, essentially very long-distance running. If you search for ultra-running on social media, you get lots of content of very healthy and fit-looking people.  "Breaking through the noise" is a verbatim quote from one of Laura's participants, as they experience social media as "noisy". The PhD research brings together Laura's interest in sports and fitness with questions about how social media shapes information practices. The research questions were formed out of her own experiences of using social media as a runner, and bring in Laura's professional experiences with IL and IB. Ultrarunning requires the use of a lot of in-depth information in order to cope with the psychological and physiological challenges e.g. pain, digestion, sleep deprivation etc.

Information from bodies is incredibly important for ultrarunners, but they are also taking i information from the landscape and watching the bodies of others. Epistemic, formal information is used, as well as social information, and of course a lot of social media information. The presentation focuses on the problems encountered on social media and how ultrarunners and their coaches navigate these. Takes Lloy'd's research as a framework for the study: Information literacy as a socially enacted practice. It isn't a skills checklist but is relational, situated, embodied and power-laden.

Social media research has focused on social media fitness influencers and content creators, who can be characterised as non-expert and unprofessional, who use social media to market themselves and products produced by partner brands. The information isn't tailored, and can be problematic. However, social media can play an important role in helping people understand their bodies, and can teach people about how to have a healthy body.

Laura observed social media activity on Instagram, and then interviewed people, and will combine these two sets of data together. The observation was ethnographic in data, where Laura engaged with social media and diarised her experiences, including her emotional state. A second stage of 19 interviews with ultrarunners including coaches and influencers, was analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. Laura identified 6 aspects of information sharing on Instagram: documenting running practices, sharing opinions and critiquing, talking about problems & challenges, giving advice, promoting products and events and advocacy campaigning. She found 3 ways that information was shared: photographs such as selfies on the run, watches, and running kit "flatlays" where all equipment is laid out on a surface in preparation for a run. They shared video content such as videos of runs, routines, training diary highlights, and finally composite media, which might be things like running data.

Social media noise is created by a combination of information problems (e.g. low-quality information, personal experiences rather than evidence), platform affordance (e.g. addictive nature, echo chamber, impact of algorithms) and social media culture (w.g. running to create content, influencers). Laura had to do a lot of very active searching to find running content from more diverse groups e.g. runners of colour, or muslim runners, or the algorithm would just throw up lots of white, conventionally attractive, young and thin runners. 

The consequences of the noise are mental health problems and becoming burnt out or injured. So what strategies do people adopt to break through the noise? 

Laura identified five strategies and tactics for breaking through the social media noise. People liked to create their communities, acknowledge that every body is different, resisting against platform affordances, being authentic and supporting information literacy: amplifying good quality information, challenging and critiquing poor quality information, advocating for expertise and authenticity. Influencers and content creators can play an important role in supporting information literacy. Participants spoke about a tension between competing for attention but also trying to remain authentic.  Content creators could reduce the impact of social media noise through activities such as teaching runners to understand their bodies, calling out poor-quality information, and sharing transparent training rationales. Laura asserted IL is important in this space, but it is complex on social media. IL is contextual, community-specific and socially constructed.

Character Defining: a library journaling game #LILAC26

The next session I will blog from the LILAC information literacy conference is Character Defining: a library journaling game about creating characters from the unexpected connections between books presented by David Smith (University of the Arts, London). The abstract is here and Smith's blog with a detailed account of the initiative (and material you can download) is at https://daspgcert.myblog.arts.ac.uk/
Smith explained that it started with the idea of the game genre solo journaling, where you are prompted to create characters and story for a role playing game, and then thinking about how this could be used to help people explore books they would not otherwise look at.
A library move had led to a weeding exrecise, but some of the books were worthwhile to read even if they hadn't been used for a while. Smith thought of making interaction with these underused books into an event - preferably fun - and thus the idea of a game. Smith mentioned Andrew Walsh's book on teaching through games and play. He was also influenced by work on serendipity and by counselling interventions that involved role play. Smith's aim was to enable people to seek out roles and stories that were not like their own, including developing conversations about decolonisation.
An exemplar game is The Last Teashop. The principles for Smith's game involved developing a character by developing the characters/stories of others in the character's life (a mentor, love interest, rival family member), so the character's story was developed through their relationship with others. These other characters were developed through random interaction with the books that had been scheduled for weeding out.
Smith acted as games master in the trial run - summing up he is certainly going to run something similar, but not exactly the same as there were logistics difficulties (books falling over), players needing more support etc. However, positives included the interaction in sharing the characters and stories, in players getting interested in some of the books and topics, and players creating a diverse, complex range of characters, locations and stories. The gaming aspect also stretched players' imagination.
An example of a follow up was a project set up for MA Publishing students "Decolonising the archive". They took a selection of books and created a scenario where Smith and another librarian roleplayed strict/misleading librarians, with fake catalogue cards and the books hidden in a cupboard. This made the students into scholars who were investing the accuracy of the records and interacting with the books. Another initiative is using the library's photobook collection as prompts for sound art projects.

Critical thinking and dissent: information literacy in a refused knowledge information landscape #LILAC26

Next from me (Sheila) at the LILAC information literacy conference is Critical thinking and dissent: information literacy in a refused knowledge information landscape presented by Madelene Logren (Umea University, Sweden). The abstract is here

Logren started by observing that IL has often been positioned as a solution to the spread of misinformation. However, this assumes that there are shared norms of credibility and authority, but this may not be the case. That leads to the question: What if IL can sometimes contribute to belief in misinfrmation, rather than reducing it? This could happen if people apply IL to e.g. spreading misinformation.
Logren's subject of study was a network of nurses formed during the COVID pandemic. This network critisised Sweden's approach to the pandemic as being unscientific and unethical (e.g. a lack of informed consent for vaccination, ignoring social impact). The network position themselves as being both inside and outside "traditional" healthcare. Most of their activity is online, with some in person protest. Logren's  theoretical framework uses Lloyd's concept of information landscapes (e.g. this book) and Neresini's work on refused knowledge and refused knowledge communities (perhaps this book); thus to examine the refused knowledge information landscape.
Logren's research explores how IL is constituted and enacted within the refused knowledge information landscape of this nurses' network. She collected from the network's accounts on Telegram and Instagram, and analysed a sample of text and images using reflexive thematic analysis.
There are 3 central central themes - being a part of the healthcare system, creating community & producing knowledge, and becoming disallusioned. The themes are within the refused knowledge information landscape and reinforce each other. The network is open to information, drawing on information from alternative sources (such as personal experiences) and also established sources (so they are not stuck in their own bubble - they do engage with opinions unlike their own).
As well as raising their profile on social media, they are also aiming to raise awareness and discussion, posing questions e.g. "What does medical freedom mean?" "How are potential conficts of interests assessed?" 

Logren then talked more about each of her 3 themes. The first theme was being a part of the healthcare system which involved reflection on the professional identity and role of the nurse (e.g. being on the patient's side). They expressed frustration with the healthcare system (saying that it was bad both for staff and patients), and moved from friction/ frustration to refused knowledge (since the nurses' critique is ignored or dismissed by management). "Nurses have a duty to report if something doesn't seem right, We must have critical thinking ..." since the nurse has a responsibility to protect the patient, and take the patient's problem seriously.
Creating community & producing knowledge was the 2nd theme - collecting personal stories as evidence so they can form a collective narrative (this includes health concerns not being taken seriously and also the experience of being silenced). Independent experts who are seen as willing to challenge traditional approaches are seen as authorities. 

The 3rd theme was Becoming Disallusioned. This included critical engagement with information (applying information literacy / critical thinking)  which resulted in reinterpretation of institutional science as untrustworthy. An example quotation was criticising the vaccine roll out because there had not been gold standard (randomised double blind) studies into whether the vaccinations reduce hospitalisation and death.
Thus "critical thinking emerges both as a moral obligation for nurses and as a way to uncover the truth." "IL practices can lead to and sustain belief in refused knowledge". This reinforces the idea that IL is social and situated. Logren's key takeaway was that the "context may shape the meanings and outcomes of information literacy practices" and one can't assume there is a skill deficit.

Pedagogical approaches in medical librarianship: exploring non-lecture-based methods for teaching information literacy, Lea Watson. #lilac26

 Pam McKinney here live blogging from day 1 of the Lilac conference.Lea Watson shared her dissertation research into pedagogical approaches in medical Librarianship. Lea began by talking about her background as a graduate trainee at the Bodleian library followed by working as a trainee outreach librarian with the NHS, where she did a lot of information literacy teaching, followed by a master's course at UCL. In preparing for her dissertation, Lea identified that there is less research on IL teaching in health libraries compared with academic libraries. Active-learning is discussed in health contexts, but only really when led by clinicians, not librarians. Lea conducted a mixed-methods study, a survey of 82 librarians and interviews with 5 librarians. The majority of the survey respondents were working in NHS libraries. Lectures do have their place, but respondents recognise that they aren't the whole education story. Librarians described a range of approaches such as workshops, using pop-up stalls, outreach activities such as micro-teaching, case-based discussions, games-based learning and simulation-based learning. The results showed 3 key benefits: 1) engagement: hands-on. activities that gave learners the opportunity to practice what they were learning about, and how they relate to daily tasks. It also situated learning in work contexts. 2) collaboration, peer learning and the establishment of support networks. 3) service visibility: getting out of the library makes librarians more visible and increases professional presence. It also helped reduce library anxiety.

Making a session interactive doesn't necessarily mean it's going to work well. Lea identified that software could support more active approaches, e.g. Mentimeter. Incentives could help to support engagement , e.g. post-it notes as prizes for activities. It was important to address accessibility, with choices of software and learning design. Large group teaching was better if co-teaching models were adopted. It';s important to clarify session design with learners so that expectations can be managed. The physical space mattered, so librarians would try to book spaces that were consistent with the design of their activities. Approaches tool flexibility and sensitivity, especially when conducting outreach activities. Professional relationships help embed teaching, and there was a need for librarians to work in a cross-professional way.

In order to evaluate the effectiveness of teaching, librarians mostly relied on informal  obeservation, but some used more structure forms e.g. evaluation forms. However it was quite difficult to collect data, and it was difficult to understand long term benefits of the training. The study identified that openess and willingness to experiment with teaching, spending time in nurse environments as part of outreach teaching increased librarian confidence in communication with nurses. Experimentation was important, and the ability to learn from successes and challenges. Professional growth through professional development is vital.

Under the radar: poor health literacy as a predictor of ill-health #LILAC26

This is Sheila with my 3rd liveblog for the first day of  the LILAC information literacy conference Today's keynote is from Sue Lacey Bryant titled Under the radar: poor health literacy as a predictor of ill-health. This is a liveblog, so I am aiming to capture key points - there was a lot of information on Bryant's slides and I haven't captured it all!
Bryant started by talking about how poor health literacy limits people's ability to deal with their health (and it is a predictor of ill-health), but it is an underaddressed issue (though she noted that the amount of literature is increasing right now). She said how we can take our literacy for granted, as we practice it in our everyday lives.
Her top 3 takeways were (1) it is a determinant of health  (2) it is a stronger predictor that demographics such as education level or ethnic group and (3) health literacy can be improved (the good news!) Bryant highlighted that 16.4% of adults in England have low literacy, but it is under the radar "because, by its very nature, it is exclusionary" since literacy skills are needed for most modes of communication (Bryant cited this). She showed a journey for literacy development, from functional literacy, to digital literacy, to information literacy, to health literacy.
Bryangt moved on to indicate the "scale of the problem" 19.4% respondents to a questionnaire had some level of difficulty reading and understanding written health information (which is more concerning, considering that a level of literacy is needed to fill in a questionnaire). An observational study found that 61% of people cannot understand word based health information which includes numbers well enough to make decisions (from this article). Also there are big differences between different parts of the UK, in terms of health literacy.
Bryant referred to the Canberra Health Literacy Club to identify situations where higher levels of skills and support were needed. There is a strong evidence that poor health literacy impacts people's health e.g. being less able to manage long term conditions, more likely to have depression, more likely to experience hospitalisation. This means there are health inequalities!
Bryant talked about the Complete Care Community Programme which worked with 65 sites, aiming to address "wider determinants of health that leads to inequity of access to, and poor outcomes from, care." - I think she said there was a report due soon.
There is a cost associated with the poor health that comes with health inequality - which falls on health trusts (e.g. with readmissions, treatment needed because of poor self-management of health) and also the cost to the person and those supporting the person.
She went on to cite Palmer & Gorman (I think this) who identified that people inhabit an information environment - and different people inhabit different information environments e.g. it might be one that is open to more misinformation. Misinformation has been shown to spread swiftly and deeply  and the 2025 Edelman Trust Barometer found that 58% of 18-34 year oldd regretted health-related decisions they had taken based on advice from influencers.
Bryant welcomed the UK government report A Safe, Informed Digital Nation which sets out an agenda to give easier access to clear, trusted information and develop media literacy. She also highlighted recommendations from the Health Equity Evidence Centre Use of library services was included, but there is currently a low evidence base to demonstrate libraries' impact - more research is needed here.
In the US National Library of Medicine's Health Literacy Companion Document (to its HL framework - see the image at the start of the post) it highlights the need for information accessibility, quality and relevance; the importance of professionals and the role of organisations. Bryant gave some examples of the need and impact of these key elements. Recommendations include having health literacy taught in teh school curriculum, not just for those studying medicine and healthcare. Bryane also mentioned a scoping review on misinformation (Boler et al, 2025 - I think this) which identifies the need for health literacy education for adults, outside formal education.
Bryant recommended the Health Literacy Matters website and also advocated becoming a health literate organisation, and also mentioned numerous NHS resources that can support health literacy. Bryant herself chairs the National Health and Digital Literacy Partnership which aims to establish a community-based approach. A key issue was collaboration, and Bryant urged people to get involved in these initiatives and to take individual steps to close the health literacy gap e.g. co-design resources and upskill.

Women of steel #LILAC26

The logo for this year's LILAC information literacy conference, held in Sheffield, shows the women of steel, a statue in the city centre that commenorates the women who worked in Sheffield steelworks during the First and Second world wars - the wikipedia entry is here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_of_Steel.
The conference started with a talk from Michelle Rawlins (a faculty member in my department, the School of Information, Journalism and Communication) who has written a book about these women (there is an article introducing the book here).
Rawlins traced the history of steel in Sheffield, which started in the 15th century, leading it to be known as the steel city. In terms of women's involvement, this started with the "Buffer Girls" in the 1860s. Rawlins' focus has been on the women who joined the steel works in the world wars. She saw that there wasn't a book about them, and so she set about writing one. They had to work in apalling conditions, with little regard for health and safety. They were motivated by helping the war effort and their jobs included crane drivers, machine operators, making parts for planes, tanks and munitions.
After the war they didn't really talk about their experience, as there seemed so many other things to work on once the war ended. The project started with Kathleen Roberts, who had very clear memories of war being declared, she worked in the steel works through the war and thought that the women of steel should get more attention. Roberts contacted the local newspaper, the Sheffield Star, in 2009 and they took up the story and started interviewing women of steel, so more women got to tell their story. Eventually a statue was proposed (with no corporate sponsorship allowed, so it wasn't cluttered!) and the statue was commissioned, with input from the women themselves on how it should look.
Following on from that Rawlins was contacted to write a fictional series based on the women's stories and she has done that - you can find information on her website https://michellerawlins.co.uk/

Links as Evidence, Ads as Clues: Undergraduate Source Evaluation Strategies #LILAC26

I will be liveblogging from the LILAC information literacy conference, which started today and which is at my university, Sheffield University. Dr Pam Mckinney may also do some liveblogging, but not as much as usual as she was a key member of the organising committee and is super busy with that!
My first session is Links as Evidence, Ads as Clues: Undergraduate Source Evaluation Strategies, presented by Alyssa Russo and Lori Townsend (University of New Mexico, USA), also authored by Amy Jankowski and Stephanie Benee. The abstract is here. The slides are at https://bit.ly/ccg_lilac As I'm liveblogging, these are my immediate impressions.

They explained they were grappling with the problem that students wanted to plunge into content without paying attention to the "packaging" - what kind of information it is e.g. article, report (the "container conundrum"). It was easier to identify information genres when pre-digital and gen-AI has intendified the container conudrum, with faked information getting more difficult to detect.
They wanted to find out what the students were doing, so undertook some research. Research questions included how students perceive info online, how do they decide what to trust, what do they consider when making evaluative decisions. The participants were 15 18-23 year old undergraduates. They were 60% female and the demographic mix was a reasonable match to the UNM population. They carried out semi structured interviews, participants were prompted with possible search topics, then they did google searches and followed up websites from that, speaking aloud and responding to questions as they went along. The researchers did thematic analysis with 2 rounds of coding - some data was collected several years ago before gen AI as life, COVID etc. intervened and the analysis is not yet complete.
The presenters showed emerging findings. This included presenting some video clips e.g. Evergreen was saying why they thought an item on the National Geographic website was scholarly (that it was on a site with reputation, that it had quotes, that it was giving data points, that it gave direct links to sites that were .gov) Townsend noted that the presence of links was often treated as like references, and participants saw .gov (or international equivalents) as being more trustworthy. The researchers wanted to know whether students could recognise genres - one student identified something as like a "yelp page for a dog park" which was pretty accurate.
Another example was a participant talking about how they judged sites by the type of adverts e.g. if the adverts were off topic or loud, that put them off, but if the ads were related to the content on the page then that was seen as more trustworthy. Townsend said that participants reacted adversely if there were prominent, loud, pop-up, bait & switch etc. The participants were thinking about WHY the adverts were in that website. The participant Fir gave reasons for why they would trust the website's creator, based on the detailed information (e.g. personal details, a calendar) and the design quality "I think she's actually trying to help people". Hemlock similarly said "Their main goal is making a difference rather than like drawing the eye".
Participants saw the lived experience, with personal stories, as being more trustworthy. Evidence of purpose was therefore important. Talking about an equality website, looking at the list of board directors, participant Hemlock felt that a foundation that drew on personal experiences was more reliable. Hemlock had less trust for a site that emphasised data (bar charts etc.) rather than personal experience. Elm trusted a website that "provides an area for people who are interested to be able to share their stories" - this was seen as a community which was less biased. This issue of bias detection came up, and "opinions" were seen as bad (e.g. one gave an example of not trusting posts from Twitter or Facebook; another thought that big national news site were biased, trying to attract viewers). Another participant talked about why they trusted an article from the Guardian, but said they thought that complete impartiality wasn't possible.
Students reported that they did sometimes check up on things, and whether did depended on the situation. For example Cottonwood said they would check up on things if it was for work, because it might affect people, whereas if it was a university project they might not. However, Birch said that they would check up if it WAS for a university project. Russo noted how the students also brought their own experience (e.g. Birch recognised the Mayo clinic as trustworthy, as her grandmother had been a patient at a Mayo clinic).
In terms of teaching implications, the presenters advocated starting with "what kind of thing is this?" "what is it trying to do?" type questions. Knowing that "scholarly is good" does not help them tell whether something is scholarly or not. Acronyms like SIFT or CRAAP are rather too simplistic, and you have to acknowledge that source evaluation is complex. However, it can be fun working with the students - as they found in this project.
Photo by Sheila Webber: registration desk before registration started

#LILAC26 preview: Supercharged by AI

My final preview post for the LILAC conference is the second from the library team at Sheffield University SUPERCHARGED BY AI: The power of global collaboration in facilitating critical AI literacy.

Vicky Grant writes: Day 2 of LILAC26 provides the opportunity to visit an exhibition. Entitled Supercharged by AI and presented by Maria de Brasdefer from IFLA and Vicky Grant and Nabila Cruz, University of Sheffield and presenting on behalf of the IATUL Special Interest Group for Information Literacy, the session is on 31 March 2026 (Parallel Session 6, 15:30 - 16:30, In Lecture Theatre 1).
Supercharged is a collection of engaging materials exhibited internationally through a global collaboration between the International Association of University Libraries (IATUL) and the International Federation of Library Associations (IFLA). This interactive exhibition was developed by Tactical Tech and Density Design Lab in collaboration with IFLA. 
Designed to engage communities with artificial intelligence through hands-on learning and critical reflection, and as a model for digital inclusion, the exhibition goes beyond technical exploration to spark conversations about the ethics, bias and societal impact of AI. It exemplifies how libraries can create inclusive, accessible spaces where communities can not only learn about emerging technologies but also critically examine their implications. 
This showcase will share experiences of hosting the exhibition in locations around the world. We will provide insights into the exhibition’s impact, engagement strategies, and how libraries as trusted neutral spaces can foster information and digital literacy, curiosity, and ethical dialogue around AI. Delegates of LILAC 2026 will be able to interact with the exhibition through this immersive showcase. They will leave with practical ideas for hosting or adapting the exhibition or similar initiatives in their own contexts.
The exhibition showcase outline is: Introduction; Supercharged by AI - reflecting on experiences from around the world; Engagement with the exhibition; Linking to online materials for local adoption; Summary, discussion and close.

Reference       
IFLA, 2024. Supercharged by AI: A new creative intervention about the effects of AI on our online lives. http://www.ifla.org/news/supercharged-by-ai-a-new-creative-intervention-about-the-effects-of-ai-on-our-online-lives/

#LILAC preview: Making, makerspaces and the role of information literacy

Only one day to go before LILAC! My final two posts are from the library team at Sheffield University. Firstly, Making, makerspaces and the role of information literacy. Vicky Grant writes: 

Day one of LILAC26 sees a parallel session from the Sheffield team (Graham McElearney, Rosa Sadler, Jack Emmens and Vicky Grant) and a fun opportunity to have a go with the digital sewing machines at a workshop on library makerspaces (Monday 30 March 2026, Parallel Sessions 3 (15:55 - 16:55) in Wave Seminar Room 5.)
The recent JISC Digital Transformation Framework (2025) and accompanying work on library perspectives on digital transformation recognises the core role libraries take in supporting knowledge creation. Citing interdisciplinary library makerspaces and the provision of equipment and training in digital content creation as an example of a library activity that can contribute to library transformation, this work opens up new and innovative possibilities for libraries. But how does this materialise in practice, and which library teams should take responsibility and lead?
This workshop will showcase participatory research and pedagogical approaches adopted to develop the University of Sheffield’s Digital Commons, an interdisciplinary library makerspace led by the Library Learning and Teaching Services team. Using a hands-on practical activity, we will focus on how student learning, the pedagogy of making, and the literacy of knowledge creation within our information and digital literacy offer gave a natural home for library based makerspaces within our information literacy practice.
Information literacy frameworks increasingly encompass creative literacies which enable individuals to become active knowledge creators, not just sophisticated information consumers (ACRL, 2015, Coonan & Secker, 2011; Open University Library, 2012; University of Sheffield Library, 2019, UNESCO, 2013). Libraries’ support for this "creative turn" (Grant 2024) in IL is reflected in the increasing establishment of makerspaces within university libraries, and the burgeoning role for librarians in supporting the development of these creative or ‘making’ literacies (Curry, 2017; Curry, 2022).
The Digital Commons is our new library makerspace. It was conceived from and builds on the outcomes of participatory action research conducted in our Creative LIbrary Project and LibFest programme (Whitehead-Wright et al., 2024, Sadler et al. 2025). This participatory co-creation is continuing this year via partnership projects with student societies.
In addition to "conventional" makerspace pedagogies (Curry, 2017; Curry 2022; Long and Hicks, 2022), we have recently been exploring anthropological and ideological pedagogical approaches, building on work by e.g. Ingold (2013) and Rowsell (2025). These include "making as a way of knowing", emphasising the importance of the "process" of making rather than just the "outcome", iterative experimentation, and the importance of engaging with the materiality of making tangible objects (e.g. stitchcraft as in this workshop). We see these as essential pedagogical principles in the age of AI, where creativity and knowledge creation can be so easily bypassed by its transactional nature.

References 

ACRL (2015) Framework for information literacy for higher education. http://www.ala.org/acrl/standards/ilframework (Accessed 13 November 2025).
Coonan, E. & Secker, J. (2011) A new curriculum for information literacy: curriculum and supporting documents. Available at: http://ccfil.pbworks.com/f/ANCIL_final.pdf (Accessed: 13 November 2025).
Curry, R. (2017) ‘Makerspaces: a beneficial new service for academic libraries?’, Library Review, Vol. 66(4-5), pp. 201–212. doi: https://doi.org/10.1108/LR-09-2016-0081.
Curry, R. (2023) ‘Insights from a cultural-historical HE library makerspace case study on the potential for academic libraries to lead on supporting ethical-making underpinned by ‘Critical Material Literacy’’, Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, Vol. 55(3), pp. 763–781. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/09610006221104796.
Grant, V. (2024) ‘A creative future for information and digital literacy’, Journal of Information Literacy (JIL), Vol. 18(1), pp. 14-20. doi: https://doi.org/10.11645/18.1.577.
Ingold, T. (2013) Making. London: Routledge. 
Jisc (2025) Digital transformation library lens. Available at: https://repository.jisc.ac.uk/10295/19/digital-transformation-library-lens.pdf (Accessed: 13 November 2025).
Long, J. & Hicks, J. (2022) ‘Maker Literacy: Connecting IL within the maker movement’, Librarians Information Literacy Annual Conference (LILAC). Manchester, April 2022. Available at: https://www.slideshare.net/slideshow/maker-literacy-connecting-il-within-the-maker-movement-jessie-long-jennifer-hicks/251667818 (Accessed: 13 November 2025).
Open University Library (2012) Digital and information literacy framework. Available at: https://www5.open.ac.uk/library-skills-framework/DIL-framework (Accessed: 13 November 2025).
Rowsell, J. (2025) The Comfort of Screens. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sadler, R., Stephenson, R., Broad, G., Grant, V., & Rocha-Lawrence, T. (2025) ‘LibFest: critical information literacy and connected relations’, Librarians Information Literacy Annual Conference (LILAC). Cardiff, April 2025. Available at: https://www.slideshare.net/slideshow/libfest-critical-information-literacy-and-connected-relations-rosa-sadler-rhian-stephenson-georgie-broad-vicky-grant-and-tomas-rocha-lawrence/277511792 (Accessed: 6 November 2025).
UNESCO (2013) Global Media and Information Literacy Assessment Framework: country readiness and competencies. Available at: https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000224655.locale=en (Accessed 31 October 2025).
University of Sheffield Library (2019) Framework for information and digital literacy. Available at: https://sites.google.com/sheffield.ac.uk/idl-framework (Accessed: 13 November 2025).
Whitehead-Wright, R. Grant, V. Rocha-Lawrence, T. and Wood, C. (2024). Reflections on liberating the library through information creation: a ‘messy’ workshop at LILAC 2024. Information Literacy Group Blog, October. Available at: http://infolit.org.uk/reflections-on-liberating-the-library-through-information-creation-a-messy-workshop-at-lilac-2024/ (Accessed:13 November 2025). 
Image from Vicky Grant: turtlestitch

#LILAC preview: Digital Literacy through arts and culture activities: supporting older adults

My next post sharing a preview of colleagues' LILAC conference presentations is from Dr Pamela McKinney, about a session which be on day 2 of the conference (31st March), Digital Literacy through arts and culture activities: supporting older adults. The abstract is here. Pam writes: 

This presentation will report on the findings from a small-scale pilot study that took place in Leeds in 2025 to understand how creativity can foster digital literacy and digital inclusion oin older adults. The project was led by my colleague Dr Sharon Wagg, and funded by the Arts Council. 
The project team, including PhD student Laura Woods and our collaborators, 100% Digital Leeds collected data from organisations in Leeds about their approaches to supporting digital inclusion in older adults that focused on arts, culture and creativity. We discovered a really broad spread of activities, including: 
- Digital art and multimedia creation e.g. digital collage, zine-making, animations, digital Christmas cards, digital embroidery 
- Virtual Reality & Augmented Reality e.g history experiences on VR headsets 
- Engagement with local history e.g. using the Leodis image archive for research 
- Digital photography e.g. to record experiences on an excursion, or to align wth other interests e.g. gardening, walking 
- Creative writing, storytelling, folklore and oral history 
- Online and hybrid arts and culture activities e.g. dance and cooking. 
- Digital music making 
We found that a caring orientation, which focused on fun and play, was really effective for supporting digital inclusion “by stealth”. Older people told us that the support they received these organisations helped them engage more with digital tools and services in other areas of their lives. The project website has links to our report, infographic and podcast, and the toolkit developed by 100% Digital Leeds
Photo of an older man with camera, "Photography", from the Centre for Ageing Better age-positive image library

Where do Americans turn first for information about breaking news?

An interesting report from the Pew Research Center - Where do Americans turn first for information about breaking news? - one striking think (highlighted in the report) is the difference between age groups e.g. 31% of 18-29 year olds going first to social media for breaking news vs. 6% of those aged 65+. 
I've linked below to the summary story, and there are links (at the bottom of the article) to the methodology, to the questions and to the descriptive results. 
The latter includes further interesting questions e.g. 67% had at some point stopped getting news from a specific source and 60% had reduced the amount of news they got overall. There is also a question about "do you consider this research" with options such as comparing sources, Googling, discussing with friends. 
St. Aubin, C. (2026, March 24). Where do Americans turn first for information about breaking news? https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2026/03/24/where-do-americans-turn-first-for-information-about-breaking-news/
Photo by Sheila Webber: magnolia tree, March 2026

#LILAC26 preview: information experiences of female engineering students; Learning Sets; Digital literacy

I continue sharing previews of Sheffield colleagues' sessions at the LILAC conference . Today's is from Laura Woods, talking about the three sessions she is involved with. Laura writes. 

I am fortunate to be speaking three times at LILAC this year! I’ve never given multiple presentations at a conference before, but all three of my presentations are from entirely separate projects, so I’m excited to be able to bring them all to LILAC. 
My first presentation is on day 1 of the conference, and will present preliminary findings from my PhD research into the information experiences of female engineering undergraduates at UK universities. I am actually revisiting a presentation I gave at LILAC in 2025, which shared results from my pilot study, at an earlier stage of my research. I’m hoping that any attendees who were there in 2025 will be able to see how my research has developed since completing all of my data collection and beginning data analysis.
My second presentation will be in the morning of day 2, where I will be presenting alongside Dr Pam McKinney. We are sharing the results of an Arts Council-funded project, looking at how creative and arts-based activities can be a gateway to digital literacy for older people. This has been a fascinating project that I’ve felt privileged to be part of, so I am looking forward to discussing the project with the LILAC audience. [There will be more about this from Pam, tomorrow!]
Finally, also on day 2, I am hosting a workshop to launch the Information Literacy Group’s (ILG) inaugural LILAC Learning Sets programme. This is a pilot scheme we are launching this year, aimed at enabling LILAC attendees to form connections and sustain these past the end of the conference. If you are attending LILAC and interested in participating in the LILAC Learning Sets, there is still time to sign up for the workshop - but places are limited! To register for the workshop, sign into your account on the LILAC website, then scroll down to “Book your conference sessions”.
Image: this year's LILAC logo, celebrating Sheffield's women of steel

#LILAC26 preview: Reflections from the next generation of IL educators

My next post sharing a preview of colleagues' LILAC conference presentations is from Dr Pamela McKinney, about a session which be on day 3 of the conference (1st April), Reflections from the next generation of IL educators (the abstract is here). Pam writes: 

This LILAC presentation will focus on the design and delivery of the Information Literacy module at the University of Sheffield, which was originally designed by Sheila Webber and is now co-taught by Pam McKinney, Sheila Webber and Pete Holdridge. The module is core in semester 1 for students on the on-campus Librarianship and the distance learning Library and Information Services Management programmes. This presentation extends the work that Sheila and I have done to promote the pedagogical approach we adopt in the module to support the next generation of IL educators, for example, with a chapter for the ACRL book “The Grounded Instruction Librarian: Participating in The Scholarship of Teaching and Learning” and conference presentations at the 2017 ECIL conference and 2016 Creating Knowledge conference and the 2018 LILAC conference. 

This presentation highlights the voices of students who have studied the module either on-campus or as a distance learner. Students were invited to contribute, and were offered a variety of ways in which to do that. Seven students volunteered: three have created short videos that will be embedded into the conference presentations, one studnet has created an interactive element, and three have contributed slides - 2 of whom will be able to attend in person. Continuing our focus on the value of reflection, students have offered reflections on the aspects of the module they found personally meaningful and influential, for their current or future practice. I’m very much looking forward to sharing their views with the LILAC conference.
Photo by Sheila Webber: cherry blossom in Sheffield city centre, March 2026 - Sheffield is the venue for LILAC this year

#LILAC26 preview: 'All mushrooms are edible but some only once': Exploring conceptualisations of information literacy in risky leisure contexts through hobbyist mycology

This is the first of a short series previews of talks to be given at the LILAC conference next week by colleagues from Sheffield University. First we have Laura Williams, librarian and doctoral scholar, reflecting on one of her talks (scheduled for next Wednesday): 'All mushrooms are edible but some only once': Exploring conceptualisations of information literacy in risky leisure contexts through hobbyist mycology. Over to Laura!

This LILAC talk about information literacy and mushroom foraging began life as a zine created last year. Last year I found myself developing an interest in fungi, enjoying walks to spot mushrooms as a form of mindfulness. This interest quickly escalated into an obsession. Hundreds of photographs on my phone, reading books and websites to learn how to identify mushrooms, and joining Facebook groups. I do not like eating mushrooms, but I found myself becoming fascinated with the information richness of hobbyist mycology. 
I turned these thoughts into a zine which more broadly explores the information world of hobbyist mycology. The ideas from that zine have now been developed into a conceptual paper focusing on the information literacy aspects and management of the risks associated with foraging. 
I share that story as insight into how I have ended up on the LILAC programme with a presentation which is neither an output from my doctoral research, nor my work as a librarian. Whilst mushrooms may not be directly linked to my doctoral research about information practices in ultramarathon running, there is certainly a connection. 
My doctoral research has also involved in depth exploration of information literacy in an everyday life and leisure setting. The research question explored is how practices of information literacy are used to manage risk in hobbyist mycology. 
This talk will be a conceptual presentation in which I draw upon selected literature about mushroom foraging to identify ways that information literacy practices are enacted. I draw upon Annemaree Lloyd’s work around information literacy as a socially constructed practice and the work of Alison Hicks on risk-informed information practices. As the title of my talk suggests, mushroom foraging could be considered a risky hobby, with risk of illness or even death from accidental poisoning. 
The talk explores social, cultural and technological factors through which information literacy is enacted. Hobbyist mycology involves many forms of information as part of decision making and negotiating uncertainty. However, little is currently known about the ways information literacy is enacted within these different information activities, and other risky leisure activities. 
Through the provocation of ‘all mushrooms are edible but some only once’ this paper calls for the information literacy community to look towards a rich, overlooked site for understanding every day and leisure information literacy. 
For a researcher who is reaching the final stages of PhD life, writing this abstract for LILAC was an opportunity to find out what would happen if I was bold enough to stray beyond my comfort zone. To find out whether I can take a different question in another space within leisure information, review the literature, explore different theories and present my ideas to an audience.
Screenshot by Laura Williams, showing one of the mushroom folders on her phone.

Webinar 24th march: Talk to Me: Conjuring Connection in the Classroom

There is a free webinar on 24 March 2026 at 12-1 pm Central Time (US and Canada) 17.00 GMT: Talk to Me: Conjuring Connection in the Classroom, organised by the ACRL Instruction Section Teaching Methods Committee. 
"Join Ariela McCaffrey, Reference and Instruction Librarian from Connecticut State Community College Three Rivers, to explore different approaches to class discussion and engagement. In this presentation, McCaffrey will provide an overview of various engagement methods based on the works of Robert J. Marzano, Dan Rothstein, Luz Santana, and Dale M. Bauer. She will also discuss studies about student anxiety regarding "negative evaluation" and its impact on class conversation, specifically how it relates to first-generation students and their success in academia. Attendees will have time to share their own stories of struggle and triumph of engaging students in class discussion." 
Register at https://wustl.zoom.us/meeting/register/RPYDC6QbTZSJ1OtTK6QpKQ#/registration. 
Photo by Sheila Webber: daffodils, March 2026

Webinar: Rejuvenate Adjuncts with a Library Retreat

Another LILi Show & Tell webinar, on 15 April 2026 at 11.00 US Pacific time (which is 19.00 BST) Rejuvenate Adjuncts with a Library Retreat, presented by Melissa Johnson and Tracey Rinehart. "This session will focus on ways to engage with adjunct faculty by hosting a one-day retreat focusing on teaching, research, and topics central to adjuncts’ daily workflows. 
Goals: Provide participants with insight and ideas on how to conduct a rejuvenating adjunct using a library retreat in order to cultivate a sense of belonging, connectedness, and partnership; Inspire attendees to explore ideas to adapt a similar event at their home institution in order to cultivate a sense of belonging, connectedness, and partnership. 
The session will include: An interactive Mentimeter presentation; A poll to determine if participants also experienced similar adjunct involvement issues; Time for participants to brainstorm ways they can implement a retreat-like event at their home institutions; Time for participants to share some of their ideas with the larger group to generate additional interest and ideas. 
Zoom link: https://uci.zoom.us/my/marquezn
Photo by Sheila Webber: daffodils, March 2026

IMLS website add AI Literacy

The USA's Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS) launched an official Government Information Literacy website in 2024, aimed to help librarians develop people's IL in different contexts. 
(1) It has created some AI Literacy lesson plans (aimed at students aged 11-18) on its Teaching Information Literacy Toolkit page (which also includes leassons plans for digital literacy, health literacy, financial literacy and science literacy) https://informationliteracy.gov/page/teaching-information-literacy-skills-toolkit
(2) It recently added a section on AI Literacy with brief explanations and curated resources of different kinds. https://www.informationliteracy.gov/page/ai-literacy
Photo by Sheila Webber: (mirabelles) plum blossom, March 2026

New articles: data literacy in community and formal education

When checking for yesterday's post on the Library Trends webinar, I realised it was worth highlighting all the articles in that Library Trends data literacy issue (volume 74, number 3, 2026, open access). The contents page is at https://muse.jhu.edu/issue/56412 
- Teaching Data Literacy in a Distrustful Environment: The Role of Critical Data Studies by Julia Bauder 
- Empowering Immigrant Library Users Through Personal Data Literacy Programming in Public Libraries by Hayley Park, Negeen Aghassibake 
- A Concept Analysis of Community Data Literacy by Amanda S. Hovious
- The Value of Data Literacy: Insights from Community College Students by Jeonghyun Kim, Brady Lund, Lingzi Hong 
- Fostering Data Literacy by Bridging Interdisciplinary Divides: Three Perspectives on Data Literacy Support at the University Level by Charlotte Kiger Price, Emma Slayton, Di Yoong 
- Not Another Boot Camp: Toward an Inclusive Computational Pedagogy by Dolsy Smith, Daphna Atias, Emily Blumenthal, Alex Boyd, Madeline Doering, Katelyn Morgan, Marcus Peerman, Robin Pokorski, Max Turer 
- Data Curation as Data Literacy Education: Grad’s Declassified Data Survival Guide by Summer Mengarelli, Mikala Narlock 
- Fostering Civic Data Literacy in Libraries: The Civic Switchboard Project by Eleanor Mattern, Marcia Rapchak, Chelsea Gunn, Aaron Brenner, Liz Monk, Robert Gradeck 
- Navigating Food Insecurity, Many Data Points at a Time: A Case Study of Georgia State University Library’s Public Interest Data Literacy Learning Lab Course by Halley E. M. Riley, Ashley Rockwell, Mandy Swygart-Hobaugh 
- Evolving Landscape of Data Education in Library and Information Science Programs: A Content Analysis of American Library Association–Accredited Curricula by Kaypounyers “Kay P” Maye, Amy C. Schuler, Chelsea H. Barrett, Ryan T. Hedrick
Photo by Sheila Webber: borage and spot the ladybird, March 2026

Webinar: Data Literacy: Navigating the Shift from Hype to Reality

Continuing the data literacy theme from yesterday, there is a webinar on 25 March 2026 at 11.00-12.00 US Central time (which will be 16.00-17.00 GMT) Data Literacy: Navigating the Shift from Hype to Reality. It features the the guest editor and authors from Library Trends 74(3) (open access). There will be presentations followed by discussion.
Presenters are: Ben B. Chiewphasa, issue editor and discussion moderator; Jeonghyun (Annie) Kim and Brady Lund The Value of Data Literacy: Insights from Community College Students; Hayley Park and Negeen Aghassibake Empowering Immigrant Library Users Through Personal Data Literacy Programming in Public Libraries; Dolsy Smith and Emily Blumenthal Not Another Boot Camp: Toward an Inclusive Computational Pedagogy. 
Register at https://go.illinois.edu/DataLiteracy
Photo by Sheila Webber: daffodils, March 2026

Recordings: Data Literacy for Community College

Recordings from the 2nd webinar series (held February 2026) which forms part of the University of North Texas' (USA) Data literacy for community college project are available. This series had that title Building Data Literacy in Practice: Tools, Lessons, and Strategies, and the webinars were on: Understanding Data and Data Sources; Making Data Insightful and Actionable; and Managing Data Ethically and Responsibly. 
Go to https://ci.unt.edu/dlcc/webinars/webinar-recordings.html and scroll down the page (the series 1 webinars on From Principles to Practice: Data Literacy in Academic Libraries, held in 2025, are linked at the top of the page). 
From my quick scan of the slides, these presentations look useful to my own teaching and students e.g. Making Data Insightful and Actionable goes from the need to formulate a meaningful question, through data collection and analysis to presentation (with the focus on quantitative data).
Photo by Sheila Webber: last snowdrops (in that I will move on from snowdrop photos now), February 2026

Articles on AI in higher education

The recent issue (Vol. 3 No. 2., published later than the title date of December 2025) of HETL Frontiers (twice-yearly journal of the International Higher Education Teaching & Learning Association) has 22 short (3 page) articles about AI in higher education, including some useful practical studies and research studies. AI Literacy and Digital Literacy are emphasised. You can download this issue from the journal home page https://www.hetl.org/hetl-frontiers/
Photo by Sheila Webber: spring branches, March 2026

Webinar: Revising the ACRL IL Framework

There is a webinar on the current review of the ACRL Framework for Information Literacy, organised by ACRL’s Student Learning and Information Literacy Committee (SLILC). Revising the Framework: Learn and Discuss is on 26 March 2026 at 13.00-14.00 US Central time (bear in mind that North America has gone to summer time, and many other countries don't until the 29th.
"Our information environment has changed in significant ways in the decade since the ACRL Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education debuted, and over the last few years a dedicated taskforce has been focused on reviewing the current framework and proposing revisions. As the release date for the draft grows near, SLILC would like to invite all interested community members to join an event that will offer an opportunity to hear some of the reasons and process for upcoming Framework revisions, as well as a chance to begin thinking about how these changes may affect your practice at a personal and institutional level."
Register at https://ala-events.zoom.us/meeting/register/vIlMUcDDSH-V-QZ61VkzkQ#/registration
Photo by Sheila Webber: a survivor (from Victorian times), March 2026

GenAISiS Online Training Series

More spaces have been freed up for the free GenAISiS Online Training Series. Two sessions have already taken place. 
In Session 3 Game 2: Bot or Not? (24 March 2026, 3:30-5:00pm GMT (UK time) "Participants will test their skills in deciding whether text came from a child, a teacher or an AI - and learn how to run this critical literacy activity in their own environment." 
In Session 4: Game: The Great Art Guess-Off (2 April 2026, 3:30 - 5:00pm BST (UK time) "Using youth-created, artist and AI visuals participants will compare: AI‑generated images; Artist-created work; Child-created drawings. A fun way to teach visual literacy and help children think critically about authenticity and style in digital images." 
The sessions are "aimed at anyone supporting learners aged 8-13 who wants to build stronger AI literacy skills (e.g., Teachers/Trainee Teachers, Librarians, Youth workers, Learning Support staff, Researchers, School Nurses, other interested information professionals, teaching professionals and students)." 
Go to https://app.onlinesurveys.jisc.ac.uk/s/robertgordonuniversity/genaisis-t-r-a-i-n-free-webinar
Photo by Sheila Webber: spot the squirrel, February 2026

Today! Navigating the Novice-Expert Research Gap

Today, 10 March 2026, at 12noon US Eastern time (19.00 UK time) there is a free webinar: Navigating the Novice-Expert Research Gap: An Information Literacy Taxonomy. "In this webinar, we will outline a new taxonomy that is intended to help instructors and librarians navigate this expert-novice research gap. Participants will be introduced to the new taxonomy and consider how they can utilize it to develop research assignments with clear expectations and appropriate scaffolding for learning." 
Information about this and other webinars in the series at https://u.osu.edu/meaningfulinquiry/spring-2026-meaningful-inquiry-workshops/ 
Register at https://osu.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_D2ErXMe0StmsdywAcPnSDQ#/registration 
Photo by Sheila Webber: lots of snowdrops, February 2026

Online courses

Online short courses offered by Library Juice Academy in April and May include 
- Embedded Librarianship in Online Courses (US$250), runs April 6 - May 3, registration & details at https://libraryjuiceacademy.com/shop/course/081-embedded-librarianship-online-courses/ 
- Introduction to Open Educational Resources (OER) (US$250), runs May 4 - May 31, registration & details at https://libraryjuiceacademy.com/shop/course/312-introduction-to-open-educational-resources-oer/ 
- Introduction to Universal Design for Learning (US $375), runs May 4 - June 14, registration & details at https://libraryjuiceacademy.com/shop/course/208-introduction-universal-design-for-learning/
Photo by Sheila Webber: someone gave the Boy With Dove statue a hat to keep him warm, February 2026

Recent articles: AI and more AI; data literacy; research guides

The latest complete issue of the Journal of Academic Librarianship is vol 52 issue 1. This is a priced publication, but at time of writng the ones which aren't open access are badged "complimentary" which I think means they are free for a limited period. The issue includes:
- McCrary, Q.D. (2026). Are we ghosts in the machine? AI, agency, and the future of libraries. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 52(1), Article 103181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2025.103181 (Open access) "Without intervention, students risk becoming passive passengers in their own research process, potentially undermining the traditional goals of information literacy grounded in autonomy and deliberate practice."
- Ayinde, L. et al. (2026). Adoption of artificial intelligence in academic libraries: A systematic review of current practices, challenges, and research opportunities. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 52(1), Article 103185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2025.103185 (Open access)
- Boetje, J. et al. (2026). Validating design principles for teaching information problem solving in higher education: Academic librarians' perspectives. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 52(1), Article 103183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2025.103183 (Open access).
- Lugya, F.K. (2026). Enhancing access and efficiency: The role of library research guides in supporting academic success at Busitema University. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 52(1), Article 103189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2025.103189
-  Kavak, A. & Gültekin, V. (2026). Examining the relationship between digital competencies and artificial intelligence literacy of academic librarians in Türkiye.  The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 52(1), Article 103191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2025.103191 - Lo, L.S. (2026). The CARE approach for academic librarians: From search first to answer first with generative AI. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 52(1), Article 103186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2025.103186
- Mann, E.Z. (2026). Making data literacy accessible: A pilot study of academic library and community collaboration for citizen data literacy. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 52(1), Article 103166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2025.103166
- Fernández-Pascual, R. et al. (2026). Exploring undergraduates' self-efficacy in information, media, and data literacies: An integrated approach using the ACRL framework's threshold concepts. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 52(1), Article 103192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2025.103192 (open access)
Photo by Sheila Webber: sign of spring, March 2026