Generative Al for College Students: A Collaboratively Developed Online Microcourse on GenAI in the College Classroom

Abstract

Academic libraries have taken a variety of approaches to addressing the opportunities and challenges of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) in higher education. For universities that have no standard policy around GenAI, instructors are left with little guidance on how to teach students about GenAI in the classroom and may have varying levels of comfort with GenAI and its applications. To address the need for more instruction around GenAI, a team of librarians and university writing center and digital media suite staff took an innovative approach to teaching AI literacy by creating a six-lesson microcourse in their learning management system all about GenAI: how it works, its limitations, and how to use it efficiently and ethically for college research and writing. Microlearning offers a robust avenue for delivering instruction created by multiple experts, while also considering instructors' time constraints around addressing both course content and AI literacy.

Headnote

Abstract

Academic libraries have taken a variety of approaches to addressing the opportunities and challenges of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) in higher education. For universities that have no standard policy around GenAI, instructors are left with little guidance on how to teach students about GenAI in the classroom and may have varying levels of comfort with GenAI and its applications. To address the need for more instruction around GenAI, a team of librarians and university writing center and digital media suite staff took an innovative approach to teaching AI literacy by creating a six-lesson microcourse in their learning management system all about GenAI: how it works, its limitations, and how to use it efficiently and ethically for college research and writing. Microlearning offers a robust avenue for delivering instruction created by multiple experts, while also considering instructors' time constraints around addressing both course content and AI literacy.

Keywords: information literacy, online learning, microlearning, microcourse, artificial intelligence, generative artificial intelligence, collaboration

Innovative Practices

edited by Carrieann Cahall, Robert Detmering, Carolyn Gamtso, and Merinda

McLure

Willenborg, A., & Withorn, T. (2025). Generative AI for college students: A collaboratively developed online microcourse on GenAI in the college classroom. Communications in Information Literacy, 19(1), 113-130.

Generative Al for College Students:

A Collaboratively Developed Online Microcourse

on GenAI in the College Classroom

Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) has quickly become a powerful tool for its capability of producing high quality, human-like text, images, videos, audio, and code, and has flooded higher education with opportunities and challenges (Cotton et al., 2024; Lo, 2023; Lodge et al., 2023). This technology uses large language models trained on data to generate new content based on the most likely response to user prompts (Feuerriegel et al., 2024). Although students have positive feelings towards GenAI's ability to help them with writing and research, they also have concerns about its accuracy, ethics, privacy, and potential bias (Chan & Hu, 2023). Faculty are concerned that students may not fully understand the limitations of GenAI and feel that it may be used unethically and harm students' critical thinking skills (Amani et al., 2023). At the same time, faculty are unsure about if and how they might incorporate GenAI into their instruction (Petricini et al., 2023). Faculty have varying levels of comfort in teaching about Al and may need additional institutional support to integrate it into their curriculum (Richardson et al., 2024). Students' lack of clarity about how GenAI works and how they can use it effectively and ethically in their classes calls for the need for Al literacy (Ng et al., 2021).

To fill this gap for students and faculty, many academic librarians have rushed to create online guides and other public materials about GenAI, including links to Al tools and information about ethics and citing GenAI (Osorio, 2023). With GenAI as a new source for information, librarians' expertise in information literacy is especially relevant to this new technology that poses questions around credibility and ethical use. Librarians have folded Al literacy instruction into their information literacy programs (Fruehauf et al., 2024); however, they feel that they can share the burden of teaching Al literacy with course instructors (James & Filgo, 2023). Librarians may find it difficult to incorporate Al literacy in traditional "one-shot" instruction where time constraints necessitate focusing on library resources related to a class's research assignment.

One solution to this dilemma is the creation of a microcourse that students can complete in conjunction with their coursework. Microlearning is a pedagogical approach in which students complete short, scalable units of learning within a short amount of time, often delivered in the online environment as a microcourse (Diaz Redondo et al., 2021; Hug, 2006). Some academic libraries have adopted the microlearning approach and report high achievement of learning outcomes (Amador & Pait, 2024; Stark & Stoeckel, 2019).

Libraries can play a leading role in sharing resources and knowledge about how AI works, its limitations, and applications to college-level coursework. This case study reports the creation of a GenAI literacy microcourse developed by university library, writing center, and digital media suite personnel to teach students about GenAI and its uses and limitations for college assignments. Based on the current literature, it is unclear whether other institutions have created microcourses in a learning management system (LMS) as a pedagogically robust way for delivering instruction about GenAI. This article presents an innovative and collaborative approach to teaching about GenAI asynchronously online through the lens of information literacy.

Context

The University of Louisville (UofL) is a public, Rl, doctoral degree-granting institution with two campuses and over 20,000 students, more than three-quarters of whom are undergraduates. UofL has seven libraries under its auspices. Liaison librarians in the Research Assistance & Instruction Department at UofL's Ekstrom Library provide information literacy instruction, usually in the form of one-shot sessions, to approximately 200-250 courses each academic year. In addition to in-person library instruction sessions, the Library also provides information literacy instruction in the form of custom tutorials and videos created for online courses and through ready-made instructional content available on our website.

Ekstrom Library is home to the Research Assistance & Instruction Department as well as the University Writing Center and the Digital Media Suite (DMS). The Writing Center provides writing assistance to students, faculty, and staff at any stage of the writing process, and the Digital Media Suite supports the UofL community's media creation efforts by providing access to equipment like cameras, microphones, and recording space as well as access to and instruction on software like the Adobe Creative Cloud suite. These three units, along with the Resources for Academic Achievement (REACH) tutoring center, make up the Learning Commons, a group of academic support services in Ekstrom Library that work together on programming to support student success. The Learning Commons partnership is relatively informal; the units generally meet each semester to share updates about their services with the hopes of creating a community around the academic support services housed in Ekstrom Library.

Because of its informal nature, the Learning Commons has mainly focused on events and has not collaborated on more extensive instructional projects. At an April 2024 Learning

Commons meeting, the Digital Media Suite manager proposed a new Learning Commons project around artificial intelligence. The University of Louisville had recently begun to address faculty and student concerns around artificial intelligence in the classroom, with the Report of the Committee on Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence in University of Louisville

Academics published in March 2024. This report provided an assessment of and recommendations around GenAI's impact on academics and research at UofL. The Delphi

Center for Teaching and Learning, which focuses on faculty development, had also recently released a training module for faculty and staff; however, resources for students were lacking.

The original idea for this collaborative project was to create a guide for students and instructors about GenAI tools that could support teaching and learning; however, the project evolved into a microcourse in Blackboard as a more substantial learning experience. The Instruction Coordinator and Science Librarian volunteered, as members of the Research Assistance & Instruction Department, to take the lead on this project, given their expertise in information literacy and their growing interest in generative AI.

Building the Microcourse

Shortly after the April Learning Commons meeting, both the Instruction Coordinator and Science Librarian attended the 2024 LOEX Conference. We attended several sessions on generative artificial intelligence and library instruction that began to inform our thoughts on potential AI content for our Learning Commons project. We also attended a session on information literacy microcourses (Flores et al., 2024b). This presentation was the impetus for our project as we thought that a microcourse on generative artificial intelligence would be a suitable format for providing instruction to students on GenAI. Unlike a passive online guide, an interactive microcourse could provide a more in-depth and engaging instructional experience for students. Faculty would be able to assign content, and instruction would not be tied to a certain time or place like it would be for a workshop or instruction session on AI. The presenters of this session on information literacy microcourses also promoted their upcoming ACRL course, Building an Information Literacy Micro-Course in Six Weeks (Flores et al., 2024a), taking place in June and July of 2024. Once we had buy-in from our partners in the Writing Center and Digital Media Suite to move forward with creating an AI microcourse, we signed up for this ACRL course to guide our creation process.

Throughout the six weeks of the asynchronous ACRL course, we completed an inventory and needs assessment, engaged in lesson planning, and began production of our microcourse content. The ACRL course was helpful in keeping us on track and planning our learning outcomes and lessons. We named our microcourse Generative Alfor College Students and decided on the topics of the six lessons and their associated learning outcomes (LOs) in the microcourse based on the needs of UofL college students and the expertise of each unit involved in the project:

o Lesson 1: What is Generative AI and How Does it Work?

o LO: Articulate how GenAI works.

o Lesson 2: GenAI Considerations: What's Wrong with GenAI?

o LO: Identify a limitation of GenAI and its implication for ethical use.

o Lesson 3: Getting the Most out of GenAI

o LO: Design an effective prompt to use in a GenAI tool.

o Lesson 4: GenAI & College Research

o LO: Use lateral reading to evaluate the accuracy of a claim made by GenAI.

o Lesson 5: GenAI & College Writing

o LO: Describe how GenAI can assist in developing writing skills.

o Lesson 6: GenAI & Academic Ethics at UofL

o LO: Explain how GenAI can be used ethically in the college classroom.

Each lesson would be standalone, meaning students would not need to complete each lesson in order and instructors could assign whichever lessons fit the needs of their course (e.g., GenAI & College Research when assigning a research project). The librarians took the lead on creating content for Lessons 1 through 4, the Writing Center created content for Lesson 5, and the Digital Media Suite created content for Lesson 6. Our planned timeline was to build the microcourse over the summer and have it ready to launch at the start of the fall 2024 semester.

We decided to host the microcourse in a Blackboard organization, which would allow us to share a link for students and faculty to self-enroll. Students and faculty at UofL are very familiar with Blackboard and its functionality, and as the leaders of the organization, we would be able to see all those who were enrolled and their submissions for each lesson. Additionally, Blackboard allows users to download completion receipts for submitted items, which students would be able to submit to their professors for grading.

In Blackboard Ultra, leaders can create a learning module that includes multiple parts such as tests, assignments, forms, and links. With these stipulations in mind, we decided to structure each lesson as a module with four parts: a pre-knowledge check, set up as a form to get students thinking about the topic at hand; a video, set up as a document so we could embed the video and include links to the transcript for students to learn more about the topic; an activity, set up as an assignment for students to apply what they learned from the video; and a reflection, set up as a form where students would reflect back on what they learned from the entire lesson (see Appendix A for screenshots). We designed the pre-knowledge checks and reflections as short critical thinking exercises that would draw on students' existing knowledge of a topic and then allow them to reflect on how their knowledge had changed throughout the lesson. The activities provided hands-on experience with the topic based on what they had learned from the video. We set up each module with a forced sequence so that students could not, for example, jump to the activity without first completing the pre-knowledge check and watching the video.

With our learning objectives in mind, we began scripting and creating videos for the microcourse in Powtoon. Powtoon allows the user to create animated explainer videos, which can visualize broad concepts like those we were covering in our lesson. Since each lesson was intended to take only about 10-15 minutes to complete, we decided videos should be no longer than three to four minutes. While creating these videos, we also began drafting the rest of the content for each lesson and providing feedback to each other on what we had created. Appendix B shows an example of content from Lesson 1: What is Generative AI & How Does it Work?

Throughout July and August 2024, we completed all components for the first four lessons. At this point, we began sharing that content with library student workers and our fellow librarians for feedback. We received positive feedback from librarians, but unfortunately, while many student workers completed lessons in the microcourse, they did not use the feedback form we provided or respond to email inquiries for feedback. The most common piece of feedback we received from librarians was that lessons were taking slightly longer than intended, so we updated language in the microcourse to state that each lesson would take approximately 15-20 minutes, rather than the originally intended 10-15 minutes.

Around this time, we also reached out to our partners in the Writing Center and Digital Media Suite to share the content we'd created and asked them to send the draft content for their lessons to us. When we'd received the writing and ethics content from our partners, we edited their scripts to ensure they matched the tone of the other videos and edited some of their other content to ensure it was streamlined and fit into the desired completion time of the lesson. For example, the Writing Center's original video script was seven pages in length, whereas the average length of a script for a three-to-four-minute video is one page. When we provided our edits to the Writing Center for review, they accepted the edits with our explanation of the time limitations for each lesson.

We also added a Welcome message and an Instructions section at the top of the main page. This page also included an optional Lib Wizard form where students could share their major and if they were participating in the microcourse for a specific course assignment. Students could complete an optional Lib Wizard feedback form at the end of the microcourse as well. While we would already be able to see the names of every person who enrolled in the microcourse, these forms allowed us to collect more information about how the content was being used at our university. We kept these forms brief to encourage participation from those enrolled. The microcourse was ready to launch less than two weeks before UofL's fall semester began. From start to finish, creating the microcourse took just under nine weeks.

Marketing the Microcourse

With the microcourse ready to launch and only twelve days until the start of the fall semester, the partners involved in this project began creating marketing materials and communicating about the microcourse's availability. Our primary audience was faculty; while students could find and enroll in the microcourse on their own, we envisioned this as an instructional tool that faculty would assign to students at key points in their coursework to address generative AI where it made sense in their curriculum. To facilitate marketing to faculty, we created a LibGuide on the microcourse to use in marketing materials (https://library.louisville.edu/ekstrom/genai). This LibGuide contained information on what the microcourse is, its lesson content and learning outcomes, and how to provide access to students and assign lessons. We created a half-page handout (see Figure 1) with brief information about the microcourse and a link to the LibGuide. As liaison librarians were attending faculty meetings around this time, they were able to take copies of the handout and market the microcourse directly to their departmental faculty.

In addition to the LibGuide and sharing at faculty meetings, we explored several other means of marketing the microcourse to faculty. We submitted information about the microcourse to our UofL faculty and staff newsletter, and the Chair of Faculty Senate shared a message about the microcourse on the Faculty Senate listserv. Our partner in the Writing Center added the microcourse to their website. Our partner in the Digital Media Suite, who works for the Delphi Center for Teaching and Learning, promoted the microcourse in the Delphi monthly faculty newsletter, added the microcourse to their AI resources SharePoint page, and posted about it on the Digital Media Suite's website and Instagram. The Libraries' social media also promoted the microcourse, and the Libraries' Communication Coordinator wrote a blog post about the project that was featured on the library homepage. As an extra measure, the team presented at UofL's well-attended Celebration of Teaching and Learning in spring 2025. We also presented about the microcourse at a Libraries-wide

town hall meeting in hopes of getting other Libraries faculty and staff on board with spreading the word.

Assessment

The microcourse has now been live for one semester, and we are beginning to dive into the preliminary data we have collected to assess the microcourse and plan for future marketing and assessment opportunities. Ninety-three people enrolled in the microcourse in the fall 2024 semester: 60 faculty/staff/instructors and 33 students. Of those enrolled, only about 50% (47/93) have completed at least one component of one lesson; the remaining 46 of those enrolled have not completed any components of any lessons. Of those 47 enrolled who have completed at least one component of one lesson, 38 participants have completed at least one full lesson, with 9 participants only partially completing one lesson (see Figure 2).

The participants who completed at least one full lesson completed anywhere from just one to all six lessons, with the average number of lessons for these users being four lessons. The most popular lessons by completion numbers are "Lesson 1: What is Generative AI and How Does it Work?" which has been completed 35 times and "Lesson 2: GenAI Considerations: What's Wrong with GenAI?" which has been completed 28 times. Additionally, the FAQ LibGuide for faculty has been viewed 918 times. While this data is limited, it has provided us with information about early adopters of the microcourse and patterns in their selection of topics and engagement with the course content.

Data from the welcome form and feedback form in Blackboard have also been useful in providing additional assessment data about the microcourse. While not required as part of the microcourse, nine users have opted to fill out the welcome form. These users reported majoring in areas such as social work, public health, neuroscience, computer science, nursing, urban studies, and education. Two of these nine users reported that they were taking the microcourse as an assignment in a class. Twelve users opted to fill out the feedback form. All twelve agreed or strongly agreed that "This microcourse increased my knowledge of GenAI." All open-ended comments were from faculty and instructors describing the usefulness of the microcourse or how they might use the content in their classes (e.g., "I've made notes throughout this course and will tweak my spring syllabus with activities and a more defined AI policy").

Beyond this data collected through the microcourse, we have also received informal feedback from several faculty via email. After our email to the Faculty Senate listserv, a communications faculty member responded with concerns about what the course teaches students about AI; we responded to this faculty member that the microcourse provided a basic overview of using AI ethically in college but that they should review the contents of the course for themself to see if it would be a good fit for their course. Another communications instructor emailed to let us know they would be using the content in their course, and a music faculty member told us that the content was very informative and asked follow-up questions about how they could learn more about using GenAI for assignment design. Finally, an education faculty member let us know that she would be assigning the microcourse in its entirely to students in all her courses for the fall semester and another communications professor let us know she would be assigning the content in the upcoming spring semester.

The benefit of having our own Blackboard organization with content over which we have full control is that the options for additional assessment are wide open. In the future, we are considering an assessment project where we analyze text responses to questions in the microcourse. While the content is not intended to be graded, we could create a rubric based on the learning outcomes of each lesson and assess responses to gauge if participants are meeting intended learning outcomes. This and other possible assessment projects will be more useful after we have gathered a more robust data set over the next few semesters that the microcourse is in use. This assessment will inform future revisions of the microcourse to ensure that it remains relevant and aligned with our learning outcomes.

Lessons Learned

Although the development of the microcourse went relatively smoothly from start to finish, we have had time to reflect on the process and lessons learned for future collaborative projects. We encourage others diving into a new kind of instructional project like this to take the time to seek out professional development before getting started. The ACRL course we enrolled in made planning and creating a microcourse, which we had never done before, a more streamlined process, preventing us from rushing through or spending too much time on each part of the project. We were also lucky to have a great group of collaborators who utilized our personal strengths of instruction, course design, and content knowledge. Our Writing Center collaborator brought expertise on AI's impact on college writing as well as a teaching faculty's perspective on the microcourse content, while our Digital Media Suite collaborator understood the broader landscape of AI at the University because of his connection to the Delphi Center. Working with these collaborators also ensured stronger continuity in how GenAI is being addressed by various academic support units at UofL. We made sure each collaborator knew their role in the project from the beginning so, while ideas were shared freely, there were no disagreements on content throughout the process and final decisions were ultimately made by the librarians leading the project.

While developing the microcourse and seeking feedback, we learned that incentives are probably helpful for receiving feedback from students. While several of our student volunteers completed lessons, none of them responded to our requests for feedback via email or the Lib Wizard form. In the future, we would ask students to complete lessons in a set time and place with us present to gather real-time feedback and would offer incentives like paid time to complete lessons (for library student workers), snacks, or coffee. Since the course was developed over the summer, we were not able to recruit any faculty aside from librarians to test the course. Additional user testing with both students and faculty could inform future revisions. Another lesson learned is to address faculty concerns up front; in addition to the concerns about content from the communications faculty member, the philosophy department also questioned their liaison at a department meeting about what exactly the microcourse teaches students about using AI. We were able to add more context to the FAQ LibGuide for faculty after hearing these concerns, but anticipating these questions from the start and having a response ready to go would have been helpful in these situations.

In addition to these lessons learned, we understand that some might be adapting a similar project to contexts that vary from our own. We utilized Blackboard for our microcourse since it is a platform that our students and faculty are comfortable with, and because our content could live behind a login screen and be truly unique to the University of Louisville. Blackboard has the added advantage of being a place where students regularly submit coursework, so our microcourse would have a similar appearance to assignments in their graded courses, giving it a more legitimate look and feel. For those without Blackboard, a different LMS like Canvas or Moodle would probably have similar functionality to Blackboard. Those without an LMS or who do not want their course behind a login screen could host a microcourse in Lib Wizard, LibGuides, or even a free Google site. The lesson topics we chose were a good fit for our institution and the needs of our students and faculty, but others should contextualize topics and assignments to their institution in order to develop content that is most meaningful to their audience. Our content was also discipline agnostic so that lessons could fit into a variety of courses; others may choose to adapt their microcourse to a narrower audience or a particular subject area like GenAI for nursing or GenAI for computer science. We have learned that marketing content that is not tied to a particular discipline makes it more difficult to get faculty to integrate the content into their course, so we have considered partnering with specific courses in the future to increase use of the microcourse.

Content creation for our microcourse went quickly, but we were lucky to have an entire summer to focus on this project. For those without the time, skills, or software to create their own video content, there are endless videos on generative AI available on YouTube that could be integrated into a microcourse. Videos from other creators could be used in a microcourse alongside lesson content created in-house to remove some of the burden of content creation but still have homegrown content to offer. Finally, if others do not have a direct line to faculty to market content or find it difficult to get faculty on board with new initiatives, consider marketing the microcourse directly to students. In our own context, we are considering broadening our marketing approach to include direct outreach to students depending on the uptake of the microcourse over the spring 2025 semester. Faculty currently make up about two-thirds of the microcourse's enrollees; we are hopeful that many of these faculty were exploring the microcourse this semester and plan to integrate the content in their future courses. However, we also feel there might be an untapped market of students who are interested in learning more about GenAI on their own time.

Conclusion

Throughout this project, we learned that you do not have to be an expert on AI to integrate AI literacy into instruction in creative and impactful ways. Using librarian expertise in information literacy and strong relationships with other units and disciplinary faculty, libraries have the potential to be leaders in providing instruction on AI literacy, especially at universities that have been slow to adopt policies and create shared materials about the use of AI. Creating an asynchronous online microcourse about GenAI literacy can alleviate the burden of diving deep into the complexities of AI in the limited amount of time librarians have with students in one-shot instruction, while providing instructors with tools to help them begin integrating conversations around AI into their classrooms in small but meaningful ways. Instead of revamping the library instruction program to focus on AI or creating a static guide that may decontextualize AI to short blurbs and lists of links, this more robust approach to teaching about GenAI can lead to deeper student learning and address the pressing need for more holistic instruction around AI in higher education.

Instructors who are not confident in leading conversations about AI can benefit from ready-made materials that emphasize the ethical use of GenAI in college and that may spark additional conversations with students about how they should or should not use AI in a particular course. Curriculum is unique and the standalone lesson structure of a microcourse allows faculty to utilize content created by librarians and other experts on campus that meets their needs. Additionally, students who are interested in GenAI can learn and think critically about these new technologies, while also alleviating anxiety about how they should or shouldn't be using these new technologies, providing them with skills they can carry with them throughout college and beyond.

While the development of an AI literacy microcourse may seem daunting, remember that expertise exists in many forms across college campuses. Working with collaborators such as writing centers, media suites, tutoring centers, or faculty development centers draws on additional expertise, creates buy-in from campus partners, and assists with marketing to the wider campus community. Librarians can and should leverage their relationships with collaborative partners in developing instruction around generative AI as we all navigate the impact of these technologies on teaching and learning.

References

References

Amador, J., & Pait, K. (2024). Fostering enhanced library engagement through information literacy instruction: Micro-learning research skills toolkit workshop series. Florida Libraries, 66(1), 24-25. https://journals.flvc.org/flalib/article/view/l36711

Amani, S., White, L., Balart, T., Arora, L., Shryock, D. K. J., Brumbelow, D. K., & Watson, D. K. L. (2023). Generative AI perceptions: A survey to measure the perceptions of faculty, staff and students on generative AI tools in academia. ArXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/2304.14415

Chan, C. K. Y., & Hu, W. (2023). Students' voices on generative AI: Perceptions, benefits, and challenges in higher education. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 20(1), Article 43. https://doi.org/l0.1186/s41239-023-00411-8

Cotton, D. R., Cotton, P. A., & Shipway, J. R. (2024). Chatting and cheating: Ensuring academic integrity in the era of ChatGPT. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 61(2), 228-239. https://doi.org/l0.1080/l4703297.2023.2190148

Diaz Redondo, R. P., Caeiro Rodriguez, M., Lopez Escobar, J. J., & Fernandez Vilas, A. (2021). Integrating micro-learning content in traditional e-learning platforms. Multimedia Tools and Applications, 80(2), 3121-3151. https://doi.org/l0.1007/sll042-020-09523-z

Feuerriegel, S., Hartmann, J., Janiesch, C, & Zschech, P. (2024). Generative AI. Business & Information Systems Engineering, 66(1), 111-126. https://doi.org/l0.1007/sl2599-023-00834-7

Flores, L., Hernandez, P., & Murphy, E. (2024a). Building an information literacy micro-course in six weeks [Online course]. Association of College & Research Libraries.

Flores, L., Hernandez, P., & Murphy, E. (2024b, May 2-4). Out on a limb: Integrating library information literacy micro-courses in first-year courses [Conference presentation]. LOEX, Naperville, IL, United States.

Fruehauf, E., Beman-Cavallaro, A., & Schmidt, L. (2024). Developing a foundation for the informational needs of generative AI users through the means of established interdisciplinary relationships. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 50(3), Article 102876. https://doi.Org/lO.1016/j.acalib.2024.102876

Hug, T. (2006). Microlearning: A new pedagogical challenge (Introductory note). In T. Hug, M. Lindner, & P. A. Bruck, (Eds.), Microlearning: Emerging concepts, practices and technologies after e-learning: Proceedings of microlearning conference 2005: Learning & working in new media (pp. 7-11). Innsbruck University Press.

James, A. B., & Filgo, E. H. (2023). Where does ChatGPT fit into the Framework for Information Literacy? The possibilities and problems of AI in library instruction. College & Research Libraries News, 84(9), 334-341. https://doi.Org/l0.5860/crln.84.9.334

Lo, C. K. (2023). What is the impact of ChatGPT on education? A rapid review of the literature. Education Sciences, 13(4), Article 410. https://doi.org/l0.3390/educscil3040410

Lodge, J. M., Yang, S., Furze, L., & Dawson, P. (2023). It's not like a calculator, so what is the relationship between learners and generative artificial intelligence? Learning: Research and Practice, 9(2), 117-124. https://doi.org/l0.1080/23735082.2023.2261106

Ng, D. T. K., Leung, J. K. L., Chu, S. K. W., & Qiao, M. S. (2021). Conceptualizing AI literacy: An exploratory review. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 2, Article 100041. https://doi.Org/lO.1016/j.caeai.2021.100041

Osorio, N. (2023). A descriptive analysis of AI guides in academic libraries. Library Philosophy and Practice, Article 8033. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/8033

Petricini, T., Wu, C, & Zipf, S. T. (2023, August 13). Perceptions about generative AI and ChatGPT use by faculty and college students. EdArXiv Preprints. https://doi.org/l0.35542/osf.io/jvma4

Richardson, E., Gordon, J., Conklin, S., Barreto, D., & Ginnetti, R. (2024). Artificial intelligence in higher education: Faculty perceptions of integration and other considerations. UNC System Learning and Technology Journal, 2(1). https://journals.charlotte.edu/ltj/article/view/l776

Stark, A., & Stoeckel, S. (2019). Librarians as threshold guides: Blazing the trail with competency-based micro-courses. LOEX Quarterly, 45(4), 13-15. https://commons.emich.edu/loexquarterlv/vol45/iss4/6

University of Louisville. (2024, March 15). Report of the committee on use of generative artificial intelligence in University of Louisville academics.