AI literacy of library and information science students: A study of Bangladesh, India and Pakistan
Abstract
This study adopted an exploratory approach to investigate the nuances of AI literacy among Library and Information Science (LIS) students in South Asia namely Bangladesh, India and Pakistan. A total of 632 respondents from these countries participated in an online survey that explored their level of AI literacy and familiarity with AI tools and technologies, purposes of using AI tools, ethical perceptions and how AI-related contents were covered in LIS courses and programmes. The study results indicate that students are moderately familiar with AI tools, but the degree of their self-rated AI literacy ranges from basic to advanced. Students reported using AI tools for academic purposes, including information searching, summarising articles, generating ideas and writing academic papers. However, participant LIS students expressed concerns about the ethical usage of AI and Generative AI tools, particularly academic integrity and plagiarism in academic writing. The results underscore the need for more robust AI literacy education in South Asian LIS education programmes – and potentially globally – to deepen students’ understanding and critical engagement with AI tools and technologies. This would better equip them for emerging roles in AI-integrated library services, highlighting a key direction for curriculum development, training methodologies and policy initiatives within LIS education and library and information management profession.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Some educators are integrating Unit Learning Outcomes and Course Learning Outcomes directly with AI-based tasks to ensure constructive alignment.
“some educators are integrating Unit Learning Outcomes (ULOs) and Course Learning Outcomes (CLOs) directly with AI-based tasks to ensure constructive alignment (Hossain et al., 2025; Jin et al., 2025).”
From Six Institutional Intervention Areas to Support Ethical and Effective Student Use of Generative AI in Higher Education: A Narrative Review (2026) · cites this paper as Hossain et al., 2025
Cites
Human trust in artificial intelligence: Review of empirical research
Glikson, E., & Woolley, A. W. (2020) · Academy of Management Annals · doi:10.5465/annals.2018.0057 · Cited by 2,921 · see citing works
Lund, B. D., Wang, T., Mannuru, N. R., Nie, B., Shimray, S., & Wang, Z. (2023) · Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology · doi:10.1002/asi.24750 · Cited by 919 · see citing works
Karaca, O., Çalışkan, S. A., & Demir, K. (2021) · BMC Medical Education · doi:10.1186/s12909-021-02546-6 · Cited by 377 · see citing works
Johnston, H., Wells, R. F., Shanks, E. M., Boey, T., & Parsons, B. N. (2024) · International Journal for Educational Integrity · doi:10.1007/s40979-024-00149-4 · Cited by 363 · see citing works
Hornberger, M., Bewersdorff, A., & Nerdel, C. (2023) · Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.caeai.2023.100165 · Cited by 276 · cited 5× · see citing works
“However, a recent study by Hornberger et al. (2023) concludes that AI literacy remains mostly unclear among university students.”
InfluentialWood, E. A., Ange, B. L., & Miller, D. D. (2021) · Journal of Medical Education and Curricular Development · doi:10.1177/23821205211024078 · Cited by 261 · see citing works
Kong, S.-C., Cheung, W. M.-Y., & Zhang, G. (2022) · Computers in Human Behavior Reports · doi:10.1016/j.chbr.2022.100223 · Cited by 135 · see citing works
Artificial intelligence literacy among university students—a comparative transnational survey
Mansoor, H. M. H., Bawazir, A., Alsabri, M. A., Alharbi, A., & Okela, A. H. (2024) · Frontiers in Communication · doi:10.3389/fcomm.2024.1478476 · Cited by 84 · see citing works
Ma, S., & Chen, Z. (2024) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2024.3468378 · Cited by 55 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Kangwa, D., Msafiri, M. M., & Fute, A. (2025) · Journal of Computer Assisted Learning · doi:10.1111/jcal.70109 · Cited by 22 · see citing works
Jayasinghe, S., Gamage, K. A. A., Yang, D., Cheng, C., Disanayake, C., & Apeji, U. D. (2026) · Education Sciences · doi:10.3390/educsci16010137 · Cited by 23 · see citing works
Medina-Gual, L., Medina-Velázquez, L., & Parejo, J.-L. (2025) · Australasian Journal of Educational Technology · doi:10.14742/ajet.10596 · Cited by 4 · see citing works
Gulen, H. N., & Kucuk, S. (2026) · Education and Information Technologies · doi:10.1007/s10639-026-14020-1 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
Krishnan, S. (2026) · Information Services and Use · doi:10.1177/18758789261452185 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
“6,7,22 These limitations short durations, urban/Western bias, and limited focus on information professionals emphasize the need for extended, multi-context investigations that capture infrastructure barriers, policy alignments, and library-relevant frameworks in India’s diverse HEI landscape.”
Influential
- Authors
- Hossain, Z., Biswas, M. S., & Khan, G.
- Affiliations
- International School Utrecht, The Netherlands
- Noakhali Science and Technology University (BD)
- Khushal Khan Khattak University Karak (PK)
- Corresponding author
- Hossain, Zakir
- Venue
- Journal of Librarianship and Information Science
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2025-01-02
- Volume
- 58
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 285-299
- ISSN
- 0022-2232 (ISSN-L)
- 0961-0006
- 1741-6477
- OpenAlex
- W4406020761
- Cited by
- 43
- References
- 9
- Citations by year
- 2026: 25 · 2025: 18
- FWCI
- 128.73
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Librarianship and Information Science (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Library and Information Sciences › Library Science and Information Literacy
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Digital literacy in education
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Library Science and Information
- Keywords
- AI literacy, library and information science students, generative AI, AI ethics, academic integrity, plagiarism, AI literacy education, LIS curriculum, South Asia, Bangladesh, India, Pakistan
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
