Class 1.

The first class was foundational, teaching the core content that would guide the students to create effective strategies for business research. The business librarians taught the students frameworks for conducting credible business intelligence; best practices for identifying, locating, and assessing insights and data; and Google techniques for creating successful search strings resulting in credible sources. In this class, the instructors discussed the concept of information creators, exploring government entities, non-governmental entities (NGOs), non-profit, and for-profit organizations; organizational motivations for creating or gathering content; and key stakeholders. The librarians highlighted distinct types of sources, such as market research, industry publications, associations, and consulting firm whitepapers, as well as examples of the information typically found in each one. Finally, they discussed strategies for determining resource and data credibility.

The first class was content heavy, and the instructors were intentional about incorporating frequent exercises and practice time for the students to start applying what they were learning. The instructors started with a brief exercise to help the students think about which sources they would turn to when looking for specific types of information. The business librarians spent the second half of the class diving into Google’s search functions for targeting “who owns” information. To guide the students through this process, an Advanced Google Worksheet was created and built into the activities. A quick “temperature check” at the end of the first class to learn what was working well and what was still unclear seemed to reinforce that the business librarians were on the right track.

Class 2.

The instructors began class 2 confident that the students were both excited and engaged with the content. The class kicked off with a discussion around best practices and pitfalls for conducting credible business research, followed by the class's core content about understanding market research, its context for conducting business intelligence, and the Google power search features for targeting this type of information. Activities were distributed throughout the class to test student knowledge of what had just been taught. A final exercise directed the students to research a business question focused on market research, including creating a search statement that incorporated the advanced Google functions learned in class 1.

As the two-hour class progressed, it was clear to the instructors that something was wrong. The energy in the room was steadily draining, the students would not participate in answering questions or even follow basic instructions (e.g., not to use laptops/phones unless otherwise instructed and to display name plates). Student responses to activities indicated a substantial lack of understanding about the content; the lack of interest and even hostility when the students were prompted to participate in discussions signaled a serious disconnect. As a result, during the class break, the instructors agreed that they needed to have a conversation with the students to gather some honest feedback about learning experiences and expectations. During this discussion, which took place the last 15 minutes of the class, the business librarians heard from the students, loud and clear, that there was more content than the students could process, and most importantly, they needed more time to practice what they were learning. The instructors listened to what the students were saying, asked clarifying questions, and thanked them for their honest feedback, promising to make necessary adjustments.

The business librarians hoped that the students left the class encouraged that they had been heard and that their learning experience would improve. The instructors, however, were very disheartened and concerned about the complete lack of student engagement in class 2. With the next class a week away, it was understood that significant changes had to be made, but there was a sense that there was more at play than just content overload and insufficient practice time.

Class 3.

The librarians met the next morning, re-evaluating their content and teaching decisions. In hindsight, the instructors realized that they had fallen into the rookie trap of packing too much content into each class. While processing the students’ comments and reviewing the decks for each class, it became clear that the students were learning concepts that were new to them, a fact which the librarians had not fully grasped at the time of course creation. Conducting credible business intelligence is baked into a librarian’s DNA; teaching the students everything the instructors believed the students needed (and would want) to know, accompanied by activities, seemed a sound pedagogy, at least at the time.

The decision was made to minimize teaching the students any new material, instead students would spend most of their time applying the content and advanced Google features covered in the first two classes. With activities built on conducting market and industry research, the students had more exercises, more opportunities to practice what they had learned, and more time to debrief and share experiences. The additional content originally planned for class 3 (company and competitor information) was moved to the deck’s appendix for interested students.

When welcoming the students back to class 3, the instructors started with a brief level setting, communicating that the student feedback had been heard and the class restructured to focus on giving the students ample time to practice and play. But the business librarians also added their expectations for student engagement, reinforcing the fact that the course could only be successful with the students’ active participation. It was expected that students would participate fully in the activities, practice the Google search strategies they were learning, actively take part in discussions, respect guidelines about proper use of laptops and phones, and display name plates at all times.

As in prior classes, the instructors used Poll Everywhere to capture Google search statements to facilitate in-class discussions about strategies and results. Using this tool also gave the business librarians a permanent record of student work for gauging progress, an approach used throughout the remaining classes. The librarians dedicated time at the end of class for student feedback, asking questions reflecting the changes made, gathering impressions about the new class structure, and seeking to clarify if the new approach was more successful for student learning styles.

Unfortunately, giving the students more time to participate in activities and develop skills and knowledge proved less successful than the instructors had hoped. The students’ abilities to utilize business intelligence frameworks and craft strategic, successful Google searches did not improve very much; overall, the students demonstrated minimal effort incorporating newly learned Google search techniques. The predominant attitude was one of boredom and lack of interest, and when called on, students often refused to answer questions; class procedures concerning proper use of devices and the display of name plates continued to be ignored. Even more challenging, when students did respond to questions or requests for feedback, they pushed back, disputing what had been taught and questioning the instructors’ knowledge and perspective on the content. The hostility experienced in class 2 continued into class 3, and it became increasingly clear that central to the students’ negative attitude was a lack of trust in the instructor’s expertise as information professionals.

Class 4 and Class 5.

Unfortunately, the experience teaching class 4 did not improve for the instructors; it just raised more questions about what could be done to improve student engagement and if any changes would make a difference. As with class 3, the instructors again minimized teaching any additional content, instead dedicating most of the class to student exercises. Over half of the class time was dedicated to a case focused on researching global business and societal issues, drawn from an MBA experiential client project. The students were divided into teams, given several specific questions to answer, and asked to report about the experience. The instructors specifically wanted the students to reflect on which search strategies worked well and which failed; which resources proved especially useful; what challenges they encountered; and what was unexpected.

The instructors had always envisioned that class 5 would introduce generative AI for conducting credible business research. They began the class by assigning the same mini case from class 4 but now instructing the students to repeat the research using ChatGPT. At the end of the activity, Poll Everywhere was used to capture the most and least successful prompts and an explanation of why. Following this activity, the business librarians briefly discussed challenges and risks of using a generative AI specifically for conducting credible business research, and best practices for crafting effective prompts. Lastly, students were asked to compare research results using both Google and ChatGPT.

Student engagement for these final two classes was consistent with the previous sessions, and the students were especially resistant to the instructor’s perspective on cautionary tales for using ChatGPT for business research. The business librarians greeted the end of the last class with a range of emotions, including relief and an overwhelming realization that there was a lot of work to be done to make sense of the experience and figure out what could have been done differently.

Content.

When the instructors began to build the course content, they drew from deep knowledge about the types of information the students would be expected to research in their jobs, combined with experience teaching information literacy, both formally in business school classes and informally through student consultations. The decisions about the broad topics to cover were appropriate; it was the depth of information, the amount of detail, and examples which caused the content overload. The business librarians wanted to teach the students everything they knew; if it even occurred to the instructors that it might be too much content, the assumption was that none of it was “rocket science;” nothing the bright business school students could not handle. Rookie mistake, big time!

It was simply too much content, and most of the students were learning it for the first time. While the instructors were intentional about inserting many activities throughout the class to encourage student engagement, the balance of content was off. In fact, the business librarians now realize that overloading the students with so much content added to the frustration level because the students had insufficient time to practice what they were learning. A wise librarian at Emory’s law library who regularly teaches multi-session courses shared some great feedback with the instructors; she said that after drafting an initial content outline, cut the content in half and then cut it in half again before finalizing the syllabus. She was right; this is one lesson the business librarians will not forget. The students had every right to be overwhelmed and frustrated.

Paring down the amount of content taught is an obstacle that can be easily overcome. However, gauging student interest in the content is much harder to anticipate and more challenging to figure out from a pedagogical perspective. In general, the students were unconvinced about the value of applying business intelligence frameworks, and skeptical about the necessity for ensuring source credibility. They were also dubious of putting effort into creating advanced Google search statements, believing that the simple Google searches they always used sufficed. And despite all the evidence to the contrary, many expressed confidence in ChatGPT’s ability to apply critical thinking when prompted to solve a business problem.

The students’ skepticism was the central focus of many conversations between the business librarians as they grappled with understanding why this was the case and what to do about it. One underlying cause might have been that faculty have inconsistent expectations around the importance of using credible sources for class projects. Similarly, the business librarians have heard from students that the quality of their research during internships is rarely challenged or questioned by employers. Regardless of the reason, the students were much less concerned about the need to validate the quality of their research, and therefore unconvinced of the importance of learning business intelligence frameworks and advanced Google search strategies.

Student Attitudes.

Perhaps the most unexpected challenge the instructors experienced was the overall lack of interest and negative, even hostile, behavior demonstrated by the students throughout the course. As discussed earlier in the article, this behavior was demonstrated in several ways, including unwillingness, at times refusal, to actively participate in discussions and failure to follow basic in-class policies; all these requirements are consistent with what business school faculty require in their classes.

The instructors acknowledge their role in contributing to student frustrations, specifically in the first two classes before making curricular changes. However, it is difficult to rationalize the persistent level of rudeness, passive aggressive behavior, and hostile attitudes experienced throughout the entire course. The unfortunate conclusion is that central to the students’ negative attitude was a lack of trust in the instructor’s expertise as information professionals.

Logistical Considerations.

Several factors that may have contributed to the students' disinterest in the content and negative attitudes could, in part, be explained by the logistics and timing of the course. The class was taught during the tail-end of the second semester of their senior year – perhaps the students were experiencing “senioritis” and were no longer as engaged with the learning process. Further, the course was graded as pass/fail, and students may not have appreciated being asked to do work in a class that they may have anticipated would be easier. Indeed, at least one student in the course feedback indicated that this was the case by writing that “[the instructors] took the class way too seriously for a pass-fail class with second-semester seniors.”

Also, not all students who were enrolled in the course were there voluntarily. While students had over 30 options of Senior Seminar sessions each semester from which to select and an entire year to take two courses, the instructors later learned that several students had delayed their completion of the Senior Seminar requirement and were placed into the class to graduate on time. It is possible that some of these students felt a level of resentment for being assigned to a class that they may not have been interested in attending otherwise.

Hybrid Model.

While no student commented on this issue in the course feedback directly, the instructors also wondered whether the hybrid teaching model impacted the way the class was perceived by the students. Perhaps having one instructor largely remote made the students resent that they were required to participate in person. While it is highly unlikely that the format will change in future semesters, the instructors will consider methods for making this model more successful.

Generational and Post-Pandemic Trends.

The instructors had not initially considered generational differences as a factor that might have impacted the students' interest and engagement levels, but during multiple conversations with other Emory staff who were either instructors themselves or who worked closely with teaching faculty, this topic arose. Similarly, the issue of changes in post-pandemic pedagogy were discussed. Other Emory instructors noted that students were becoming more “transactional” in their approach to their studies, and if they did not see the direct value of what they were learning, they were quick to dismiss it. While the business librarians tried to highlight the real-life applications of the tools and strategies being taught, perhaps the students still did not see their utility.

Instructor Approach.

In their feedback, several students mentioned that they found the instructors to be too focused on using Google as a tool and dismissive of using ChatGPT and generative AI tools for business research. Specifically, one student wrote, “They're very biased against AI ... seems quite closed minded.” While the instructors maintain that relying on ChatGPT exclusively to conduct credible business research would likely be a mistake given its limitations and risks, they plan to reevaluate how they approach this topic from a more positive perspective going forward.

Culmination of Factors.

Overall, the instructors have concluded that a variety of factors impacted the students’ willingness to engage with the material and their general distrust in the teaching approach. The instructors recognize their own mistakes that contributed to this perspective, including inadvertently overloading content and appearing too narrow-minded when it came to embracing new tools and technologies. Despite the instructors’ efforts to restructure the class, the students still did not seem to experience any “aha” moments, which ultimately left them less interested in continuing to learn or accept what they were being taught.

Who Qualifies as an Expert in an Age of Misinformation?

First, many articles that addressed this topic considered the growing tendency of students to have diminished trust in people who have typically been considered experts. Based on a Pew Research Center report originally published in 2022 and updated in 2023, Americans’ trust in scientists and other experts has declined noticeably since the COVID-19 pandemic (Lenker, 2023; Kennedy et al., 2022; Kennedy et al., 2023). Even before this report was published, several authors identified this trend in students and considered the challenge of building strong information literacy instruction when students no longer implicitly trust the expertise of professionals and other traditional authorities (Badke, 2017; Johnson et al., 2018; Lipkova et al., 2018). Lenker notes that “the trend of waning trust in experts identified in the studies by Pew and [similar organizations] suggests that [the] public is not necessarily looking for the library's expert perspectives” (2023, p. 557). Another author notes that librarians will need to confront the tendency of students to trust their own intuition and instincts rather than relying on advice from outside experts (Badke, 2017). Perhaps, for the senior seminar course, the students may have felt distrust not only in the expertise of the librarians, but even in the sources that the students had been using during in-class activities.

Student Willingness to Learn and Accept Help

Furthermore, various authors noted the importance of the students identifying their own knowledge or information gaps before they could be receptive to receiving help from someone else - in this case, an information professional. In one article, the author references an earlier work titled The Giving and Taking of Help that considers how and why people are open to accepting help (Keith-Lucas, 1972, as cited in Howze, 2003). Specifically, Howze mentions that students must want a situational change before they are open to accepting guidance and are willing to trust the instructor; in essence, students must recognize that they need to gain new knowledge, that they cannot accomplish this alone, and that the instructor is capable and able to teach them that knowledge (Keith-Lucas, 1972, as cited in Howze, 2003). This concept was affirmed by other authors as well (Ettinger, 2008; Franks, 2016). In the future, the business librarians will consider methods for encouraging the students to notice or articulate their own knowledge gaps and will shape instruction with the intention of filling the gaps that the students identified.

Building Trust as Librarians.

Various authors also proposed methods that would allow librarians to build trust with students, some of which lean on service models that have been successful outside the field of librarianship. Drawing parallels from trust-building exercises across disciplines – from business (Franks, 2016) to social work (Howze, 2003) to bibliotherapy (Ettinger, 2008) – several authors suggested strategies that would allow librarians to develop practices that resonate with their students. Ettinger (2008) describes the bibliotherapy method as follows:

Further, empathy on the part of the librarian can set the tone for what is to come and facilitate instruction. Capitalizing on user input, the librarian can design an instructional session around declared and implied student needs, opportunistically insinuating those things he or she wants to get across in the course of responding to students' requests for assistance. In this enterprising, nontraditional approach to instruction, the librarian assumes the role of bibliotherapist, ministering to the shared, collective concerns of his or her clientele. Group therapy, you might call it. (Group Therapy section, para. 3).

In another article, Franks (2016) succinctly states that building trust for a librarian is critical, because while “discipline expertise is a valuable commodity... librarians who fail to build trust with constituents may struggle to engage them” (p. 1). In other words, regardless of the level of insight and experience that librarians bring to the classroom, if these same librarians cannot establish a strong relational bond before they even begin the process of teaching, students will be disinterested or disengaged.

Logistics.

The instructors considered if the course could be taught in the fall to avoid some of the senioritis sentiment. Given the amount of work that needs to be done to rework the class and how busy the fall semester is, teaching in the spring is the only practical option; once changes are in place and have been tested, the librarians might consider offering it during the fall. With the decision made to teach the course in the spring, it was agreed to schedule it in the first half of the semester, hoping to provide more distance before graduation and avoid having students involuntarily placed in the class to earn the required credits.

While the requirements about active participation, use of devices, and name plates were included in the syllabus and mentioned at the beginning of the first class, the instructors will be clearer about connecting these requirements to receiving a passing grade. Displayed name plates will allow students to be called on by name, which is important for establishing rapport and necessary for evaluating work and performance.

Curriculum and Teaching.

There are several pedagogical changes the instructors will make to improve the learning experience. First will be to benchmark student habits and assumptions about conducting business research using Google prior to any content being taught. At the beginning of the first class, the business librarians will ask everyone to run a Google search to answer a specific business problem and save the search results. During the last class, the students will run a new Google search incorporating some of the strategies they learned in the course and will compare the results. Hopefully, this reflection will reinforce what the students have learned and how much their credible research skills have grown, which will affirm the value of conducting credible business intelligence.

The classes will be restructured, with each one dedicated to a specific focus (e.g. finance, marketing, etc.), aligning the content with the academic areas in which the business school classes are organized. There are several benefits to this approach: students will identify strongly with the area(s) that relate to their career choice and sessions will include sources that are unique to their respective areas, enabling the students to come away with a toolkit of resources relevant to their jobs. The goal will be for each student to feel that there is something important for them to learn.

In addition, outside speakers (e.g., alumni and vendors) will be integrated into the curriculum. The hope is that this will make classes more interesting for the students, but more importantly it will reinforce the value of what the librarians are teaching.

Finally, the business librarians need to be much more realistic about the time limitations of a five-week course, recognizing that very intentional editing of the content must take place. An important lesson learned from the first iteration of the course was that to ensure a more successful, positive learning experience for the students and the librarians, the instructors must recognize limitations about what they can teach based on how much the students can process and the level of interest in the topic.