Using Generative AI to Create a Library Newsletter

Generative AI has gained significant popularity in recent years. It is capable of creating new content by learning from existing data. It learns, which is a terrifying thought for many, but an exciting advance in technology for others. ChatGPT is one example of a generative AI program that allows users to type in a prompt and receive a very quick response from its programming. You can ask it to redecorate your laundry room, rewrite your own words to make them sound more professional, or even create a newsletter for a school library. In this activity, a simple prompt was used to describe what we wanted the newsletter to provide, and within seconds, ChatGPT created brand-new content and returned an almost ready-to-go newsletter for an elementary school librarian. Below is the prompt that was used and a summary of our experience using AI to create a newsletter. 

Prompt Entered: “create a newsletter for an elementary school library, make it fun and upbeat, add upcoming events and contact information, make it for the fall season” 

To get started, we tried Canva’s AI tool first, thinking that it would have the best likelihood of creating a ready-to-use newsletter with its templates and design capabilities. Upon entering the prompt shown above, Canva quickly returned “I’m not sure how to create this type of newsletter design yet” and offered to show some newsletter templates. So, we decided to try ChatGPT instead, unsure of the format the newsletter would come in, but more confident that this AI program would be able to handle the content. We entered the same prompt into ChatGPT and, within seconds, received a fully written newsletter. The AI created a catchy title, “Leaf through the Library”, following the requested fall season theme. It developed a welcoming message, a new titles list, makerspace update, reminders, librarian contact information, and a library fun fact. We did not specifically request these features, but learning from previous data, the AI program included them, “knowing” that it is relevant to an elementary school library. ChatGPT even created three fall-themed events to include in the newsletter with dates, times, and event details. It developed a pumpkin patch, book fair, and “Fireside Fridays” activities to be showcased in the newsletter. ChatGPT offered to format this information in different ways, such as a trifold brochure or email content. You do have to pay for premium service to utilize these features once ChatGPT reaches its “free” service limit for the day, so we did not choose those options. 

From here, we went back to Canva and selected one of its suggested fall-themed templates and simply copied and pasted the content created by ChatGPT into Canva’s template. It only required a bit of resizing and minor formatting adjustments to fit the Canva template and finish with a polished, professional-looking library newsletter. Here is the final result of this process: Fall Library Newsletter. With a few minor changes to make it actually match the intended library, such as changing the contact information to my actual email and phone number, it would be ready to publish. The library activities could also be edited to match the actual library events, or the prompt could be changed to include the actual library events with date, time, and detailed information. 

After discussing the final result with fellow librarians and classmates, we agreed that the final newsletter result is both engaging and informative. Social media communication should be relevant and engaging to patrons, and this newsletter matches that criterion. The content is accurate and correct, but it should always be checked for accuracy before utilizing content because generative AI does make mistakes. It is missing a personal touch, however, because the content is generic and not specific to any particular library. In order to improve the newsletter, it would be essential to add personal details and touches that connect to your specific library. For example, the library reminders stated that library books are due on Monday, and students can check out two books at a time. This may not be accurate for your library, but again, it is easily changed. The formatting and wording are present and can be adjusted to fit your library’s details. Equally important is library branding. Before publishing, I would include my library and/or district branding to create a sense of ownership and market the services provided by my library. 

In conclusion, generative AI is a helpful tool for maintaining the library’s social media presence. ChatGPT offered to format the content it created into a number of different options that could be tailored to meet the needs of the intended audience. In practice, I would most likely use the services provided by ChatGPT to write individual sections of a newsletter, rather than creating an entire newsletter with one prompt. For example, I may use the prompt “create a newsletter entry for an elementary school library to advertise the new makerspace area for STEAM education”. By tailoring the prompt to something specific to your library, you are likely to get more personalized results that will fit into your weekly/monthly/seasonal newsletter template. 

What would you change about our combined ChatGPT and Canva newsletter?

Environmental Scan

Summary of Demographics

The focus school is labeled as a fringe rural setting, on the edge of a major city, between rural and urban settings. However, the community is very suburban, with a high population density, well-developed residential areas, and its own infrastructure and services. To identify the correct setting for the environmental scan, I have used the urban and suburban locations to more accurately describe the school’s community. 

This elementary school serves grades Kindergarten through 5th grade and has a population of just under 1,000 students. 41.1% of students are white, and 58.9% of students belong to a minority group. Within that minority group population, the dominant groups represented are Hispanic/Latinx (45.7%), Black/African American (4.5%), and Asian/Pacific Islander (4.4%). The campus has 15% of students considered economically disadvantaged. The focus school performs well above expectations in both math and reading when compared to both the school district and the state. While listed as 15:1, the teacher ratio is more accurately about 22 to 24 students per teacher in general education classrooms. 

All demographic information was gathered from U.S. News and World Report school rankings. 

Summary of Observational Data

In observing the community of this focus school for over ten years, it is evident that the majority of families are quite affluent. The PTO has many parent volunteers who come from single-income households, allowing the unemployed parent to be very involved in school activities. Many of the employed parents are doctors, lawyers, and business owners. Due to its location in Texas, there are many parents employed in various fields of the oil and gas industry. There are less affluent families, as indicated by the 15% economically disadvantaged population, but this is not significant compared to many other districts and campuses. There are a few apartment complexes zoned to the school, but most are relatively new residential neighborhoods with homes averaging between $250,000 to $3,000,000 in value. 

Many students on this campus have personal smartphones or smartwatches, such as an iPhone or Apple Watch. It is not uncommon for students as young as kindergarten to have a personal device, although many do not bring them to school. The campus has classroom Chromebook carts for 1:1 access in grades 3-5 and 1:2 access in grades K-2 across the building. There is no dedicated computer lab, as devices have been moved into each classroom. Additionally, the campus has two sets of iPads available for use as needed. 

All observational data is gathered through personal experience and observation. 

Summary of Environmental Scan Data

According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture report, 4% of students in urban areas do not have broadband internet access at all. For suburban areas, similar to the focus school chosen, 70% of students have broadband internet access at home. The conclusion could be drawn that of the 30% of students without internet at home, all but 4% can access the internet regularly in some way. Considering these results by income, which most of the families in this area would be classified as $100k and up, this report would indicate that 90% of students have broadband internet access at home. For the 15% economically disadvantaged population, it could be estimated that only 55% - 80% have internet access at home or could be smartphone-dependent for internet access. Based on this information, for this school and area, almost all students have internet access at home, and all students have regular internet access at school.

When looking at electronic device access, 79% of families with school-aged children have either a shared or personal device at home. For elementary-aged children in particular, 69% of students have a personal tablet, 36% have a personal laptop, and 35% have a personal smartphone. Around 20-25% do not have access to technology at home; however, considering the upper levels of income, this percentage is cut in half, meaning students at the focus school are more likely to have a personal device at home than schools with a lower average income. 

The U.S. Department of Agriculture report indicates an assigned grade of a D, or 60-69%, for the state of Texas for technology integration. However, the focus school and district must be significantly higher than this state average. Texas is a large state, and there is such diversity in its schools and school districts. Considering the indicators for technology integration, including broadband internet access and technology access, this school is significantly above the state average. The report lists the percentages of schools with different technologies, and this focus school has all of the technologies listed. This includes internet connection, desktops, laptops, interactive whiteboards, Chromebooks, projectors, tablets, and digital cameras. There are so many districts that do not have these available in Texas, which is where the score of D comes from. However, the technology and applications used most frequently are more similar to the focus school, which seems to be more in line with the national average. The most frequently used technologies are reported as videos, websites, internet searches, music, word processing, online lessons, and interactive whiteboard lessons. This is very similar to the focus school’s technology usage, with one major difference noted. The school district utilizes the Schoology Learning Management System (LMS), and students are on this frequently. Nationally, LMS usage is quite low, so this was a notable difference. Consistency with the lesser-used technologies was also noted. Nationally, there is less creation happening. Less use of technology for video creation, social media, photography, and video conferencing. This is an area in which all schools could grow, including the focus school. 

In conclusion, the chosen focus school is in a better position to leverage technology for student learning than many other districts in the state and nation. There is certainly room for improvement in how technology is utilized by both teachers and students, and the district must strive to remain current on emerging technology. However, in today’s digital age, this school is well-connected to both technology devices and internet capabilities. The community both embraces and values technology integration into education. 

All environmental scan information was gathered from the U.S. Department of Agriculture report.

References

(n.d.). Best Elementary Schools Ranking: Creekview Elementary. U.S. News and World Report. Retrieved June 7, 2025, from https://www.usnews.com/education/k12/texas/creekview-elementary-213177 

Michael Cohen Group, L.L.C. (2016). Michael Cohen Group report: Environmental scan of educational technology in U.S. public schools. United States Department of Agriculture. https://www.mcgrc.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Report-Environmental-_-Final12.22.2016.pdf 

Pedagogy Before Technology

Students belonging to Generation Alpha, born since 2010, have very different views of technology than someone my age. Belonging to the Xennial micro-generation, born between 1977 and 1983, has grown up with an entirely different relationship with technology. I experienced the rise of the internet and technology in its earliest, developing years. We had floppy disks and played Oregon Trail on huge desktop computers in the school’s computer lab. We played simple video games on the Atari, and graduated to the Nintendo Entertainment System and Super Mario Bros. as young children. We were introduced to social media in its formative years, creating MySpace profiles with delicate care and attention to detail. There was no video and very little photo evidence of our embarrassing moments, and we were excited to get our first pagers and cell phones in college. Xennials grew up synchronously with technology’s rapid growth. I learned the new technology as it was introduced, so this small group of Generation X - Millennial crossovers simultaneously knows what it is like to have and not have technology. In contrast, Generation Alpha has always known technology and was born into a fully digital world. They save their digital information on the cloud and prefer Snapchat for connecting with friends and even people across the world whom they have never met. They play a wide variety of video games with advanced graphics on the Xbox or PlayStation 5. Generation Alpha documents everything, storing vast amounts of photos and videos that they then post on social media for all the world to see. According to the Marist List, “They have grown up with Big Data and ubiquitous algorithms that know what they want before they do” (2019).

These two generations are a contrast of privacy and full transparency. It is a juxtaposition of two dramatically different transitions from childhood to adulthood. While Generation X grew almost to adulthood without much technology and Generation Alpha has never known a world without technology, my generation fell somewhere between, and this provides a unique perspective on the role of technology in our lives and education. The difference is significant and critical to understand in our roles as teachers and librarians. Knowing that technology is essential to the current generation of students helps us to understand the role it can play in the classroom. Technology can increase student engagement and help to address higher-order thinking skills following Bloom’s Digital Taxonomy. For example, to achieve the highest Bloom’s level of “Create”, students can blog, program, code, or create a podcast (Common Sense Education). Technology enhances the opportunities and opens the door to so many variations of producing new and original work. In a digital world, educators should be utilizing the available technology to reach students and enhance their learning at high levels. 

An important consideration when selecting technology tools for learning is the Bloom’s verb at which we want students to operate. If we are looking to have students create, commenting on a blog post is not going to achieve the desired result. We would want to have students creating their own, original blog posts and perhaps collaborating with a group of students to do so. This moves from Evaluate to Create and achieves a higher-order thinking level (Churches, 2008). Technology can also be a foundation upon which we design learning if the goal is to teach the technology itself. Thus, as educators, we must consider our goal for using a particular technology application. If we know the intended outcome, we can use Bloom’s verbs to select the most appropriate technology tool. If we know the technology tool we would like to use, the tool drives the learning, and we can select the most appropriate Bloom’s level for students based on their experience. 

For librarians in particular, technology has been a part of the role since the late 1990s when another radical change in education placed importance on teaching 21st-century skills to develop students into lifelong learners (Wine, 2016). This expectation has grown throughout the years, but current trends are moving the technology piece to the role of the “instructional technology specialist (Wine, 2016). This still requires the school librarian to collaborate closely with the technology specialist, which is why education in the area of educational technology is critical for librarians. Librarians may focus more on information literacy skills, but they still need to integrate technology into these lessons to enhance the learning and capture today’s students. Without a firm grasp of the technology tools that are available, we lose out on so many great opportunities to elevate student learning. School librarians must strive to keep up-to-date on educational technology even as the role of instructional technology specialists becomes more common on campuses. 

The educational technology landscape is ever-changing and always evolving, and educators must continually adapt to keep up. That is not an easy task. As soon as we become experts in one form of technology, the next new thing comes out, and we find ourselves behind again. However, it is the students who need to be using this new technology. We are merely the facilitator guiding their learning and use of technology applications. For example, as Artificial Intelligence has become more commonplace, teachers need only know the basics of where to implement its use and a general understanding of how it works. The experts are in the room, allowing students to explore and figure out the details and mechanisms of using AI. We simply provide the opportunity to experience such technology. Educators should not feel obligated to be an expert before utilizing the technology, otherwise, it will be obsolete before we ever get around to implementing it into our instruction. Learn enough and then let students do the rest of the work. They just might teach you more than you ever thought you would know! 

References

Churches, A. (2008). Bloom's Digital Technology. Research Gate. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228381038_Bloom's_Digital_Taxonomy 

[Common Sense Education]. (n.d.). Bloom's Digital Taxonomy [Video]. Common Sense Education. https://www.commonsense.org/education/videos/blooms-digital-taxonomy

(2019, August 21). The first Marist Mindset List is released. Marist University. Retrieved June 4, 2025, from https://www.marist.edu/w/marist-news-the-first-marist-mindset-list-is-released 

Wine, L. D. (2016). School librarians as technology leaders: An evolution in practice. Journal of Education for Library and Information Science, 57(2), 207–220.