Information Literacy in Higher Education: A review and case study

This article was downloaded by: [University of Saskatchewan Library]On: 01 May 2013, At: 19:05Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Studies in Higher EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cshe20

Information Literacy in HigherEducation: A review and case studyBill Johnston a & Sheila Webber ba Centre for Academic Practice, University of Strathclyde, UKb Department of Information Studies, University of Sheffield, UKPublished online: 25 Aug 2010.

To cite this article: Bill Johnston & Sheila Webber (2003): Information Literacy in Higher Education:A review and case study, Studies in Higher Education, 28:3, 335-352

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03075070309295

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representationthat the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of anyinstructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primarysources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cshe20

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03075070309295

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Studies in Higher Education Volume 28, No. 3, August 2003

Information Literacy in HigherEducation: a review and case studyBILL JOHNSTONCentre for Academic Practice, University of Strathclyde, UK

SHEILA WEBBERDepartment of Information Studies, University of Sheffield, UK

ABSTRACT The aim of this article is to review and critique the current state of information literacyeducation, and propose a way forward. Key developments in the UK, USA and Australia arereviewed, including standards and models of information literacy. The place of information literacyin the higher education curriculum is discussed. Problems with current practice are identified, inparticular, prescriptive guidelines which encourage a surface learning approach; delivery by librarianswho may lack both educational training and power to influence the curriculum; and poor assessmentmethods. Alternative approaches are highlighted. A case study of a credit bearing information literacyclass, offered by the authors to undergraduates at Strathclyde Business School, is analysed, to arguethat information literacy can stand alone as a subject of study, with appropriate learning andteaching methods. The article concludes by proposing models for the information literate student andthe information literate university.

Introduction

Information literacy is the term used to describe a number of initiatives in higher educationthat seek to meet the broad demands of the information society. The information society hasbeen defined as ‘a society in which the creation, distribution, and manipulation of infor-mation has become the most significant economic and cultural activity’ (UK NationalInventory Project, 2000). The associated changes in the way in which knowledge is producedand used are of key relevance to higher education in the twenty-first century (Gibbons,1998). The scale and connectedness of the global information society demands an educa-tional response that focuses on information use as distinct from use of information technology(IT): educating for information literacy rather than IT literacy.

In this article we review major information literacy developments, concentrating on thehigher education sector, and identify how and by whom information literacy is taught. Wefollow with a case study of a credit-bearing information literacy class which has been offeredto business school undergraduates at the University of Strathclyde since 1998/99. The articlefinishes with conclusions about the importance of information literacy: asserting that univer-sities should adopt a policy of becoming information literate in order to lead, rather thanfollow, the information society.

Information literacy has been perceived in a variety of ways. Our own working definitionis that:

ISSN 0307-5079 print; ISSN 1470-174X online/03/030335-18 2003 Society for Research into Higher EducationDOI: 10.1080/03075070310000113441

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 1

9:05

01

May

201

3

336 B. Johnston & S. Webber

Information literacy is the adoption of appropriate information behaviour to obtain,through whatever channel or medium, information well fitted to information needs,together with critical awareness of the importance of wise and ethical use ofinformation in society.

In this definition we aim to capture more complex experiences of information literacy.There has been a tendency for information literacy to be confined by a narrow ‘library skills’or IT agenda, or to focus specifically on IT literacy. However, information literacy can beseen more positively as a response to the cultural, social and economic developmentsassociated with the information society. Candy et al., in their influential report on life-long learning, note the implications of an increasing dependence on information, and theymake information literacy one of the five key elements in the profile of a lifelong learner(Candy et al., 1994). We contend that it is this holistic view which is more appropriate tohigher education and it seems timely to embed the subject formally in the undergraduatecurriculum.

Development and Definition of Information Literacy Worldwide

There has been increasing international interest in information literacy since Zurkowskicoined the term in the 1970s (see Carbo, 1997). In this section we summarise key contribu-tions to the development of the definition and practice of information literacy in highereducation, in particular concentrating on the USA, Australia and the UK. For thoseinterested in examining the topic in more depth, Bruce and Candy (2000) provide an accountof educational programmes and research initiatives from around the world, includingSingapore, Canada, South Africa and New Zealand. Bruce (2000) gives an analyticalreview of the territories of information literacy research from its roots in library skills andbibliographic instruction. Bawden (2001) reviews the literature and discusses the differentwords and phrases that have been used in this area, noting the increasing incidence of theterm ‘information literacy’, and its dominance over potential alternatives such as ‘medialiteracy’.

Academic and Professional Roots of Information Literacy

Information literacy has not sprung from nothing. Two areas have been particularlyinfluential: information science and bibliographic/library instruction. The former disciplineprovides theoretical underpinnings for aspects of information literacy. Saracevic (1999)provides a recent overview of the development of information science, a term which wascoined in the 1950s. Ingwersen (1992) stresses the interdisciplinary nature of informationscience, which draws on theory from psychology, linguistics and sociology (to illuminatestudy of the user), and from computer science and engineering (to develop informationtools). Theories concerning information seeking behaviour, developed by researchers such asKuhlthau (1993), are also drawn on by information literacy researchers.

As regards the library skills training area, we will simply flag up that there is an ampleliterature. It consists for the most part of brief case studies by librarians, who have beenusefully helping library users to acquire library skills for decades, and there are also examplesof more conceptually advanced work. Rader (1999, 2000) provides literature reviews forthose interested in this aspect.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 1

9:05

01

May

201

3

Information Literacy in Higher Education 337

Information Literacy in the USA

Spitzer et al. (1998) identify the milestones in the development of information literacy in theUSA as: the linkage of information literacy to democratic ideals during the 1970s; theacceleration of interest in the 1980s stimulated by the growth of computer networks; and theestablishment of the National Forum on Information Literacy in 1989 and the Institute forInformation Literacy in 1998.

The most frequently cited definition (within and outside the USA) is that formulated bythe American Library Association (ALA) Presidential Committee on Information Literacy(1989):

To be information literate, a person must be able to recognise when information isneeded and have the ability to locate, evaluate, and use effectively the neededinformation. (p. 1)

Notable is the emphasis on recognising an information need, evaluating what is found, andusing the information effectively. This already distinguishes it from descriptions of ‘infor-mation searching’ or ‘information finding’, which foreground the information location elementof information literacy. Also notable is the way in which definition is made not by mappinga subject area, but via a description of personal skills. This approach has also been adoptedin many of the subsequent models of information literacy.

The (US) Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL, 2000) synthesised anddeveloped preceding work by defining key areas of desirable behaviour, namely, that theinformation literate student:

1. determines the nature and extent of the information needed;2. accesses needed information effectively and efficiently;3. evaluates information and its sources critically and incorporates selected information into

his or her knowledge base and value system;4. uses information effectively to accomplish a specific purpose;5. understands many of the economic, legal, and social issues surrounding the use of

information and accesses and uses information ethically and legally.

An interesting difference from the ALA definition is that, instead of recognising wheninformation is needed, the student here ‘determines the nature and extent’ of their need.Whilst it may seem a subtle change, the new phrasing omits one stage of the informationseeking process. This framework also expands on the shorter definition by placing the studentin the broader social and economic context.

ACRL lists performance indicators and indicative outcomes for each of the key areas.For example, one of the three performance indicators for standard 4 is ‘The informationliterate student communicates the product or performance effectively to others’, and one ofthe four outcomes for this is ‘Incorporates principles of design and communication’. TheACRL website includes brief case studies and advice on institutional best practice, andACRL runs immersion programmes to educate academic librarians to implement the stan-dards.

Whilst this approach seems to put the individual at the centre of the process, the resultis a series of ever more detailed lists. There is a danger that a strategy like that of ACRLresults in a ‘tick the box’ approach: reducing a complex set of skills and knowledge to small,discrete units. This rather mechanistic approach to information literacy is also evident inanother widely cited model, the Big6 skills information problem-solving approach. Accordingto its authors, this is ‘the most widely-known and -used approach to teaching information and

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 1

9:05

01

May

201

3


technology skills in the world’ (Eisenberg & Berkowitz, 2001). The Big6 initiative hasdoubtless been of practical use, and advocates a mixture of constructivist and cognitiveobjectivist learning and teaching methods (Carey, 1998). However, the name ‘Big6’ itselfflags up the overall tendency to adopt a ‘recipe’ approach to information literacy, i.e. that itcan be broken down into six steps which will form the golden pathway to informationsuccess.

As an additional problem, the majority of US information literacy initiatives have tendedto be led by librarians, whose work may not be integrated into credit-bearing classes. Whilstmuch attention has been paid to information literacy by American policy-makers, librariansand academics, the results are still relatively narrow, giving a potentially superficial guide tothe nature of a curriculum for information literacy in higher education.

Information Literacy in Australia

In Australia there has been broader, and higher level, interest in the concept of informationliteracy. The 1991 government report on Australia as an Information Society (Parliament of theCommonwealth of Australia, 1991) flagged up some key issues, such as a potential dividebetween the information rich and information poor. The Mayer report (Australian EducationCouncil, 1992) demonstrates that the concern is not just with IT. Collecting, analysing andorganising information and Communicating ideas and information are two of the (seven) keycompetencies identified by a committee with a remit to advise government on competenciesfor post-compulsory education. Information’s significance is highlighted: ‘The processes forgathering and managing information are now more important to effective participation inwork and education than at any time in history’ (p. 21). The report’s authors note also thatcompetencies are ‘mindful, thoughtful capabilities’ which ‘must incorporate the sense of thelearner as one who builds concepts and develops understandings’, and they explicitlycondemn a behaviourist approach to competency (p. 7). The Mayer report compares keycompetencies identified in official reports from the UK, USA and New Zealand: the UK andUS approaches highlight information technology skills, and make less explicit mention of skillsassociated with information content (such as information management and evaluation).

As has already been noted, the Candy Report (Candy et al., 1994), Developing LifelongLearners through Undergraduate Education, lists information literacy as one of the five keyelements in the profile of a lifelong learner. A more recent report from the (Australian)Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs (2000) outlines An Education andTraining Action Plan for the Information Economy. One of the strategic priorities listed forhigher education is ‘Encouragement of universities to ensure that their graduates enter theworkforce with the competencies needed, including information literacy skills and lifelonglearning skills’ (p. 82). Australian interest in information literacy is also evidenced by thenational conferences in information literacy, held every two years at the University of SouthAustralia since 1993.

In 2001 the Council of Australian University Librarians (CAUL) produced an Aus-tralian version of the ACRL standards for information literacy. Their version of thesestandards takes a broader approach to information literacy than the US original, talking aboutthe information literate person (rather than student) and adding two new standards:

… recognises that lifelong learning and participative citizenship requires informationliteracy;

… expands, reframes or creates new knowledge by integrating prior knowledge andnew understandings individually or as a member of a group. (CAUL, 2001)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 1

9:05

01

May

201

3


This ties in with the vision reflected in the Australian Library and Information Association’s(2001) Statement on Information Literacy for all Australians, which stresses the importance ofinformation literacy for personal empowerment, participative citizenship and social inclusion.It also accords with the National Library of Australia’s commitment to Equity of Access toInformation Literacy Skills (Alston, 2001).

The Australians’ changes to the standards have been influenced by Bruce (1997a). Usingphenomenographic methods to explore the conceptions of information literacy held byacademics as well as librarians, Bruce identifies seven different ways in which individualsexperience information literacy. These are the ‘seven faces’ of information literacy, rangingfrom an ‘Information Technology (IT) conception’ to a ‘wisdom conception’. These reflecta full spectrum of approaches which go beyond an emphasis on library skills, IT and sources,to conceptions of constructing and extending knowledge and ‘using information wisely forthe benefit of others’. Bruce’s work is significant in providing a counterpoint and challengeto the more limited ‘skills’ accounts of information literacy, thereby providing a foundationfor full credit-bearing classes. Her relational model has been confirmed by Catts (2000). Bycontrast to American approaches, the Australian experience seems to provide a broader basefor determining the nature and content of the potential curriculum for information literacy.

Information Literacy in the UK

Developments in the UK have tended to lag behind those in Australia and the USA. Whilstthe North Americans and Australians have drawn up information literacy standards, theStanding Conference of National and University Libraries (SCONUL) started by developinga model for information literacy. Again, it is focused on defining personal characteristics.Their framework for the Seven pillars of information literacy (Task Force on Information Skills,1999) provides a progression from basic skill (‘Ability to recognise a need for information’)to the more sophisticated (‘Ability to synthesise and build upon existing information,contributing to the creation of new knowledge’). They see the model being used in a numberof ways, including programme design (Town, 2000). SCONUL’s account tends to supportBruce’s work in showing that there is more to information literacy than can be learned in afew afternoons in the library.

Commentators on the undergraduate learning environment increasingly emphasise theuse of IT and the Internet to achieve a variety of subject-specific and generic skill learningobjectives, including information skills. Use of IT was listed in the Dearing Report (NationalCommittee of Enquiry into Higher Education, 1997) along with learning to learn, numeracyand communication skills, as one of the four key skill areas for students in UK highereducation.

However, information literacy is rarely mentioned explicitly as part of the UK ‘key skills’agenda (see Drew, 1998), although it fits readily within it (for example, information seekingand evaluation skills feature prominently in the programme specifications of the QualityAssurance Agency for Higher Education (2000). This is in contrast to the Australianapproach, where official reports have explicitly mentioned information literacy, rather thanjust IT literacy and generic personal skills. This may explain in part the limited progress indeveloping and implementing holistic and complex accounts of information literacy in theUK.

The UK’s Joint Information Services Committee (JISC) has funded a number ofprojects potentially relevant to information literacy education, such as the NetworkedLearning in Higher Education (Centre for Studies in Advanced Learning Technology,Lancaster University, 2001) and the eLib (Electronic Library) projects. The Higher Edu-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 1

9:05

01

May

201

3


cation Funding Council for England and the Scottish Higher Education Funding Councilhave also backed various initiatives, such as the collaborative training and information projectaimed at engineers (Joint & Kemp, 2000).

However these solutions tend to overemphasise use of IT, and in particular use of theInternet, equating information with electronic information. It has been shown that althoughthere are efforts to make good quality information sources accessible to faculty and students,free search engines may be preferred to priced networked journals and databases (Armstrong,2001). Therefore making people information literate is not simply a matter of providing themwith better organised virtual libraries. Overall, the UK presents a somewhat skewed profile,with overemphasis on IT in the various subject curricula and a limited appreciation of thewider implications of the information society for higher education curricula, teaching andlearning.

Summary

There has already been substantial international debate and research on information literacy,and there have been repeated efforts to draw up skill lists, standards and models (butgenerally not curricula) relating to information literacy. Key points to emerge from the debateare that:

• the international profile of information literacy is growing and should be taken seriously asthe appropriate vehicle for integrating responses to the information society from the library,computer and pedagogical communities;

• there is a body of theory and practice relevant to higher education, graduate careers, theworkplace and citizenship. The body of knowledge, methods and skills described asinformation literacy goes well beyond library and information ‘search and find’ skills or ITfluency characterisations, and requires integration into the curricular structure of highereducation;

• in some countries, concern with improving IT competency may have diverted attentionaway from serious engagement with the challenges posed by education for informationliteracy.

In short, it appears there is sufficient content, method and value in information literacy tojustify a course of study in its own right, and we explore the implications of this for theundergraduate curriculum and the university more generally in the following sections.

The Place of Information Literacy in the Curriculum

This section will discuss the potential requirements of an information literacy curriculum,how information literacy is being taught at the moment, and the mismatch between thepotential and the practice.

The Challenges of the Implied Curriculum

Table I extracts some of the higher order elements identified in three of the most importantframeworks or models which have been mentioned: the ACRL Standards, the SCONUL‘seven pillars’, and Bruce’s ‘seven faces’ of information literacy. It is worth noting that, forexample, ‘critically evaluating information’ is a subject of study in itself and should not beconfused with a generic outcome such as ‘being critical/evaluative’.

The agenda set out in these models implies a demanding curriculum. It places infor-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 1

9:05

01

May

201

3


TABLE I. Higher order elements of information literacy

ACRL Standards SCONUL Seven Pillars Bruce Seven Faces

Standard Three Pillar 6: The ability to Category six:The information literate student evaluates organise, apply and The knowledgeinformation and its sources critically and communicate information to extension conception.incorporates selected information into his or others in ways appropriate to Information literacy isher knowledge base and value system. the situation. seen as working with

knowledge and personalPerformance Indicators(P1) include: • To cite bibliographic perspectives adopted in3. The information literate student references in project reports such a way that novelsynthesizes main ideas to construct new and theses insights are gained.concepts. • To construct a personal

bibliographic system Category seven:Outcomes include: • To apply information to the The wisdom conception.1. Recognizes interrelationships among problem at hand Information literacy isconcepts and combines them into potentially • To communicate effectively seen as usinguseful primary statements with supporting using appropriate medium information wisely forevidence • To understand issues of the benefit of others.2. Extends initial synthesis, when possible, at copyright and plagiarism.a higher level of abstraction to construct newhypotheses that may require additional Pillar 7: Synthesise and create.information The ability to synthesise and3. Utilizes computer and other technologies build upon existing(e.g. spreadsheets, databases, multimedia, and information, contributing to theaudio or visual equipment) for studying the creation of new knowledge.interaction of ideas and other phenomena.

5. The information literate student

determines whether the new knowledge has

an impact on the individual’s value system

and takes steps to reconcile differences.

Outcomes include:1. Investigates differing viewpointsencountered in the literature2. Determines whether to incorporate or rejectviewpoints encountered.

Sources: Association of College And Research Libraries (2000); Task Force on Information Skills (1999); Bruce(1997a).

mation literacy firmly in the higher education curriculum, where the emphasis is on develop-ing critical thinking and reflective practice. There is a match between, for example, the verbsused in the descriptions of the ‘top’ pillars of the SCONUL model (e.g. ‘compare’, ‘evaluate’,‘apply’, ‘synthesise’) and verbs used by educationalists to describe higher level learningoutcomes. Therefore, if higher level outcomes, teaching, learning and assessment methodsare to be aligned in the manner advocated by, for example, Biggs (1999), then it follows thatadvanced information literacy needs to be addressed by a learning and teaching strategywhich incorporates evaluation, comparison, reflection and exchange of views.

This also seems to have implications for information literacy’s place within the curricu-lum. If the student is to be able to reflect on and sustain their progress, then they will needtime to develop. If assessment is to be part of the process, then, given the increasingunwillingness of students to devote time to outputs which do not count towards their officialprogress, credit-bearing classes would also seem to be necessary as the context for infor-mation literacy. Given the current modular organisation of knowledge in UK higher edu-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 1

9:05

01

May

201

3


cation teaching programmes, it would appear that at least a credit-bearing module would bethe minimum institutional response to the potential of information literacy.

What is Being Taught and by Whom

Hepworth (2000) describes a continuum of information literacy teaching. At one end heplaces ‘discrete’ activities: fragmented efforts to teach specific skills (e.g. searching a particu-lar information source) in isolation. At the other end, he places ‘integrated’ informationliteracy education, where information literacy is integrated into the curriculum, by impli-cation the curriculum of another discipline, using problem-based learning. The definingcharacteristics of this continuum appear, therefore, to be both context (more specifically, theextent to which information literacy is contextualised in another discipline) and approach tolearning and teaching. The literature contains many case studies by librarians of informationliteracy instruction (see Rader, 1999, 2000; Bawden, 2001; Webber & Johnston, 2001), andbetween them they cover Hepworth’s spectrum, though with a distinct bias towards ‘discrete’activities which are not part of a credit-bearing curriculum.

However, we would dispute the implication in Hepworth’s classification that the bestapproach to information literacy is to integrate its teaching into that of another discipline.Our own response has been a credit-bearing information literacy class at Strathclyde Univer-sity, which we describe in the latter part of this article.

There are a number of problems associated with current practice. One of them is the waythe education is assessed, and this is discussed separately, below. Another is in the prescrip-tive agenda set by leading bodies such as ACRL. In their standards for information literacythe assumption seems to be that the skills have been mastered for good once each unit canbe labelled as completed. Whitson (1998), for example, is a critic of a similar ‘tick the box’approach to education in key skills. This fragments the field of knowledge, and reflects asurface learning approach (simply memorising and reproducing the content as presented withlimited attention to application or transformation to new contexts), rather than a deepapproach (in which the student intends to make sense of the content and develop a personalunderstanding); see, for example, Marton and Saljo (1976); Ramsden (1992, p. 46).

A further problem concerns the personnel delivering teaching. As is evident from theliterature, most of the work which could be explicitly labelled information literacy is beingcarried out by librarians. These librarians are usually expected to carry out a range ofactivities, with information literacy education as a part of their duties. As noted by Hepworth(2000) and librarians themselves, it is likely that they need more education about learningand teaching, so it is perhaps not surprising that much of what they are doing could becriticised from an educational perspective.

We are not the only commentators to draw attention to the gap between the impliedinformation literacy curriculum and actual practices of teaching, learning and assessment.Buschman and Warner (2001) have noted the mismatch between the subjects that librariansare trying to teach (e.g. ‘the highest cognitive level of critical evaluation’, p. 62), and theinadequate methods (‘shallow and flawed’, p. 63) they are adopting to assess studentlearning. Pausch and Popp (1997), in their study of the way in which librarians assessinformation literacy training, found that evaluation tended to be informal, and to addressisolated elements of a programme. Both pairs of authors note the reliance on feedback abouthow the students feel about the training; ‘What is shown in the literature, for the most part,is user satisfaction with the one-shot session, when it is possible that the patrons do not knowenough to be dissatisfied’ (Pausch & Popp, 1997).

Furthermore, librarians’ sphere of influence is limited in comparison with that of

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 1

9:05

01

May

201

3


academic staff, and thus information literacy itself may be marginalised by faculty andstudents. Librarians who are teaching information literacy identify the problem of beingallowed very limited time in which to educate students in this complex field. For example,Brancolini and Heyns (1998) describe a strategy compromised by faculty’s refusal to add acredit-bearing class. They note the inadequacy of one-off sessions incorporated into otherclasses. Gutierrez and Wang (2001) emphasise the necessary role of lecturers in settingassessments which address information literacy, since ‘A single library research class is notsufficient to significantly improve these skills’ (p. 211).

One of the advantages perceived by those who advocate integrating information literacyinto the curriculum is that, through partnership with academics, information literacy may betaught and learnt at a deeper level. Calderhead (2000), for example, describes her successfulcollaboration (as a science librarian) with a chemistry lecturer in integrating library skills intoan undergraduate module. She notes, however, that learning objectives had to be modified,as observation, an unassessed test, and discussion showed that students needed more time tolearn. Her thoughtful account of the collaboration, whilst encouraging, demonstrates thateven a fruitful partnership such as this can go only a small way to meeting the curriculumimplied by the ACRL standards or SCONUL pillars. There is still the likelihood that astudent’s information literacy education will be patchy and incomplete if it is experienced inreduced form and in the odd individual class.

Interestingly, librarians mirror the opinions which some academics have of them in thiscontext, in criticising the ability of some academics to teach information literacy. In aconference discussion about who should be teaching information literacy, speakers ques-tioned whether many academics actually were that good at (or interested in) teaching, andcommented that academics ‘often do not have any information skills themselves and havelittle idea how to teach them’ (Powis, 2000, p. 79). Whilst there is some truth in theseassertions, they are an oversimplification and may ignore relevant work that is being done byacademics in teaching of market research, research methods etc.

Alternative Ways of Looking at the Information Literacy Curriculum

Carey (1998), discussing US school libraries, maps a different, and to us more meaningful,continuum in which the defining characteristic is pedagogic approach (see Fig. 1). Libraryskills (requiring knowledge and tool skills) are placed at one end, information literacy(requiring cognitive strategies), at the other and information skills (requiring tactics andstrategies to solve problems) in the middle. He categorises the psychological foundation of

FIG. 1. Carey’s (1998) information literacy continuum.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 1

9:05

01

May

201

3


information literacy as cognitive constructivism, whilst library skills are founded on cognitiveobjectivism, and information skills on a mixture of the two implying greater pedagogicalsophistication. Carey judges current practice to be close to the library skills end of thecontinuum whilst research in the field and advice from key advocates is more advanced.

He notes that even though there is strong interest in a constructivist approach toeducating for information literacy, there are significant barriers: ‘Even when [US] statesspecify the desirability of information literacy, they typically prepare tests to measure it inways that are at odds with constructivist theory’. Carey also highlights that, whilst approachessuch as Kuhlthau’s information seeking model and the Big6 skills model advocate problem-based learning, this is set in the context of a constraining framework which insists thatstudents move through specific steps in a specific order in order to solve the problem.

Bruce (1997a) proposes a relational approach to education for information literacy,where ‘information literacy education is seen as learning to conceive of effective informationuse, that is information literacy, in new and increasingly sophisticated ways’ (p. 153).Students of information literacy might, ideally, come to appreciate all Bruce’s seven faces(conceptions) of information literacy, and thus gain a much deeper understanding ofinformation literacy in different contexts and from different perspectives. Teaching becomesa facilitation of the process by which the student experiences these different conceptions.Bruce sees this as compatible with an emphasis on reflective and experiential modes oflearning, and with a problem-based approach to aspects of the curriculum.

Limberg (1999), like Bruce, used phenomenographic methods to develop further thetheme of information literacy as complex subject of study. She studied information seekingin Swedish students, and identified a correlation between an analytical approach to infor-mation seeking and a deep learning approach to coursework. She also suggests that educatorswho experience information literacy as IT-biased or as linear fact-finding may be transmittingthis approach to their students, thus encouraging surface-learning approaches to academicassignments.

Information Literacy at Strathclyde: a case study of theory into practice

This section outlines the way in which an information literacy class was implemented atStrathclyde University, and describes the student response. We have described how wedesigned the class in 1997/98 in Johnston and Webber (1999). Our focus in this article is onthe extent to which a credit-bearing class can be successfully mounted and we use severalhypotheses grounded in the literature to explore this question.

The major hypotheses that we wished to test through the design and implementation ofthe class were the following.

1. Information literacy could stand alone as a subject for learning and teaching.2. Learning and teaching methods should encourage reflection in order to engage students

in more advanced information literacy (as described in Table I).

The chosen methods had to enable students and lecturers to review and demonstrateprogress over a period of time (exercising different aspects of information literacy in differentcontexts). This approach involves going beyond shopping lists of desired behaviours asinstruments of student assessment. In order to do this we adopted a strategy for learning andteaching which stimulated student views on class content, on learning and teaching methods,and on their own development as information literate people. We did this through a plannedsequence of exercises (e.g. asking them to define information literacy at different points in thesemester, through differently focused class exercises and through the written assignments).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 1

9:05

01

May

201

3


The emphasis during lecture, tutorial and laboratory meetings was on collaboration, brain-storming, discussion, and reflection on learning process. In this respect we were adopting anumber of the strategies identified by Marton and Ramsden and summarised by Bruce(1997b) as being part of a relational approach (e.g. helping students to recognise how theyare conceiving information literacy; presenting the student with new ways of seeing). We alsotaught the class collaboratively, with the authors both being present at most sessions. Thismeant that we were able to compare views of student reaction, and of our own teaching andlearning methods.

The Context for the Class

The one-semester credit-bearing class is run jointly by the Department of InformationScience (formerly by Webber, now by another lecturer in the department) and the Centre forAcademic Practice. It is an elective class, first offered to students in Strathclyde BusinessSchool in 1998/99. The class has had students studying various combinations of marketing,economics, psychology, human resources management, tourism, law, geography, finance,accounting, environmental studies, and sociology. This means that there has been cross-disciplinarity in the class, but that they were not disparate disciplines. This cross-disciplinarity seemed to cause no problems, other than making it more difficult for studentsto timetable group meetings. When asked to reflect how learning from other subject areashad helped with their information literacy assignments, students were able to identify skillsand knowledge that were relevant, and some commented informally on the benefits of amultidisciplinary team.

The aim of the Strathclyde class is to provide students with a foundation in informationseeking and communication skills, to enable more confident and competent performanceduring degree studies, enhance employability and contribute to their capacity for lifelonglearning. The class includes development of technical competence in the selection and use ofinformation strategies and technologies, but emphasises evaluation of information in relationto specific contexts, needs and uses. Key themes include: information literacy as a concept;searching and browsing; selecting and evaluating information; writing appropriately andeffectively; the information economy. The teaching strategy adopted engages students inactive development and regulation of their learning rather than passive response and examin-ation of recall. Teaching and learning strategy is reinforced and integrated by the nature ofthe assessed assignments. Both the individual and group assignments require students to:select disciplinary topics and business organisations for investigation and evaluation; nego-tiate topics with tutors and with other students for the team assignment; work individuallyand as team members; contribute to the course website and e-mail discussion list; applyconcepts and techniques critically; include reflective accounts of their learning processes in allwritten reports (for more details, see Johnston & Webber, 1999; Webber & Johnston, 2000).

Testing Our Hypotheses for the Information Literacy Class

1. Information Literacy Could Stand Alone as a Subject for Teaching and Learning in its OwnRight.

The first and most obvious point is that the students accepted information literacy as a validtopic, with its own theory and practice. Once a subject has achieved credit-bearing status,students are likely simply to accept that it has some weight. It seemed to go further than this,though, in that students responded positively to it as a worthwhile topic of study.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 1

9:05

01

May

201

3


Many of the students identified information literacy as being directly beneficial whenthey formulated statements about information literacy. We recorded students’ (changing)perception of information literacy through class exercises:

• At the start of the semester students addressed the questions, ‘What is informationliteracy?’ and ‘Why do you want it?’ in small discussion groups in class, and the resultingstatements were presented to the rest of the class and posted on the class website.

• A second exercise interacts with first-year students from Sheffield University. For the1999/2000 session we asked our students to form groups in class and draw up statementsabout the value they felt information literacy would have for first-year undergraduates

We analysed statements from both exercises by theme and the results of this analysis arereported in a previous article (Webber & Johnston, 2000). Key benefits of informationliteracy identified by the students included:

• effective searching and better access to information;• understanding computer technology better;• useful in future career and/or for job seeking;• increased awareness of what information sources are available in a variety of media;• analysing, interpreting information;• evaluating information, improving ability to select relevant information;• useful for other university classes.

In Webber and Johnston (2000) we map the perceptions of the students from this classagainst the SCONUL and Bruce models. To summarise, students tended to exhibit infor-mation sources and information evaluation conceptions, rather than knowledge/informationcreation conceptions of information literacy. As the class progressed they did, however, moveaway from an information technology conception, and laid more emphasis on informationevaluation and management aspects.

There were comments from individuals in tutorials that they had learned a great dealabout information and learning, and were revising their understanding of their own learning.This often took the form of commentaries on approaches to study in earlier years of thedegree: some recognising that they had missed out through not knowing enough aboutfinding information; some indicating that they perceived good information skills as asignificant factor in getting better essay marks through being able to cite more or newermaterial. The external examiner for the class identified it as valuable and potentially usefulto undergraduates in other faculties.

The feedback we elicited in this area demonstrates that information literacy can betaught as a stand-alone subject in its own right, and does not have to be incorporated intoother classes in order to be meaningful to the students.

2. Learning and teaching methods should encourage reflection in order to engage students in moreadvanced information literacy.

As has already been noted, a number of the standards and models for information literacyinclude goals for, or conceptions of, information literacy which involve higher order thinking.Learning outcomes for our class express this more complex view of information literacy. Theclass assessments explicitly require multidimensional evaluation, reflection and synthesis. Forexample, the second assignment is an evaluation of a website from different perspectives: asan information source; as a marketing tool; and from a usability viewpoint. Students also

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 1

9:05

01

May

201

3


reflect on the way in which their learning from the information literacy class and their majorsubjects of study have helped them complete the assignment successfully.

Their work in class and performance in assignments indicates engagement with thereflective, analytical intentions of the class. The following quotations from assignmentsillustrate some points of development:

If students were learning actively from an early age, where individuals think forthemselves and generally produce knowledge instead of being spoon fed it, theywould have the ability to sort, group and evaluate the mass of information which isnow in global circulation. This is effectively what an information literate should beable to do. (Third-year Marketing and Economics student)

In the context of lifelong learning I feel this project has allowed me to build a solidfoundation for my future data gathering technique. Economics is very much aresearch based profession, moreover, the more efficiently and effectively you gatheryour data the better you do your job and the quicker you gain promotion—or so thetheory goes. (Third-year Finance and Economics student)

To be effective you have to search for information, you will probably discover a hugeamount, but the key is to decide what is useful, absorb it and evaluate it again,otherwise information overload leads to inefficiency. (Third-year Marketing andFinance student)

Our students’ response specifically to the mode of learning and teaching was gathered in classdiscussion, through observation, through a tutorial which included study of an article by King(1993), and in a student review of the class. Relevant comments also emerged in studentassignments. King contrasts the transmission mode of teaching (‘Sage on the stage’) with anapproach which is more interactive and student centred (‘guide on the side’). We chose thisarticle because it provides a concise account of the theoretical underpinnings of our teachingmode and, therefore, allowed more objective discussion of the learning and teaching mode.King’s view was seen as relevant to defining and understanding the nature of informationliteracy, because it clarifies the information literate learner as a maker of meaning rather thanan assembler of bits of information.

Summary

An information literacy class is viable, and can form the keystone in a student’s informationliteracy education. However, even this is not enough on its own. A framework for informationliteracy education through a student’s career is needed, implying a more radical solution. AtStrathclyde University there has been progress in this direction with the implementation ofcredit-bearing integrative studies classes, which are compulsory for Business School studentsin each of the first three years of study. An account of these integrative classes is given byBelton et al. (2001).

Conclusions and Possible Further Directions

What conclusions can we draw from our survey of information literacy as a developingdiscipline?

1. We have recognised the importance of information literacy as a key discipline of the informationsociety.

This seems key to progress in higher education. Without this recognition, we contend that the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 1

9:05

01

May

201

3


FIG. 2. The information literate student in the changing information society.

pedagogical and organisational response to the new pressures on the curriculum will remainlimited and inadequate to the economic and social demands of the emerging global economy.This inadequacy is likely to become more evident as the information society evolves further.Consequently, institutions that fail to mount the kind of holistic response advocated here facethe threat of failing to keep up with more environmentally sensitive competitors.

2. We have a model of the information literate student.

This model (see Fig. 2) illustrates the ways in which an individual will experience changeswhich affect the type of information they need, and the ways in which they access, evaluate,understand and use that information throughout their lives. Within the information societythere are social and cultural changes which will affect both the nature of the curriculum andthe student’s own personal goals (a detailed discussion is given in Webber & Johnston, 2002).There are also developments in the information economy which will again affect both thestudent’s personal life and the way in which the curriculum is delivered, for example,legislation to do with freedom of information and copyright. Information literacy will beuseful for lifelong learning, and it must be adaptable to changes through life.

A feature of this model is to give study of information literacy equal status with study ofanother discipline and development of the individual’s personal profile and aspirations. Thistakes our model beyond the traditional emphasis on subject study, which tends to relegateother features of higher study to the margins or bury them within disciplinary teaching.Equally, our model is more positive than the key skills/personal development movement, inthat it introduces a distinctive, and economically relevant, body of knowledge to be studiedand applied rather than simply concentrating on a shopping list of ‘transferable skills’.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 1

9:05

01

May

201

3


We suggest that the development of such classes and widening the numbers of studentsinvolved is a necessary condition to produce information literate students on the scale impliedby the World Bank report (Gibbons, 1998).

3. We have a vision of the information literate university.

However, as we have noted, simply adding more classes is not enough. The developmentof the information society and the knowledge economy is causing fundamental change inthe nature of organisations, and this includes universities. It is not enough to achievethe model expressed in Fig. 2: for the university simply to concentrate on teaching studentsto be information literate. We contend that in order to realise fully the value of this approachas a sensible curricular response to the information society and the knowledge economy,universities need to reappraise their own structures and reprioritise activity accordingly.

This model requires that all members of the university—administrators, academics andresearchers, as well as students—become information literate. Bruce (1999) puts forward thecase for infusing information literacy into the workplace at all levels. Management forinformation literacy implies strategic rethinking, which may affect planning, resource

FIG. 3. The information literate university.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 1

9:05

01

May

201

3


allocation and management systems. When academic staff become information literate it caninfluence their pedagogic thinking and the way they conceive of their own discipline and itsknowledge base. Our answer is therefore an information literate university in the changingworld (Fig. 3), aware of developments, evaluating, and seeing opportunities for knowledgecreation, extension and wisdom.

This would be a university that was comfortable with all seven of Bruce’s faces ofinformation literacy, and realised that the way to meet the needs of the information societydid not necessarily lie in frantic development of pedagogically questionable electronicteaching packages. By coming to conceive of themselves as information literate, universitieswould be able to position themselves as being different from, and on a higher level than, thegrowing competition in the education market.

Correspondence: Bill Johnston, Centre for Academic Practice, University of Strathclyde, 50George Street, Glasgow G1 1QE, UK; e-mail: [email protected].

REFERENCES

ALSTON, R. (2001) Federal government Statement on Library and Information Policies [online] (Kingston,Australian Library and Information Association). Available at: http://www.alia.org.au/alw/2001/statements/alston.html [checked 15 October 2001].

AMERICAN LIBRARY ASSOCIATION PRESIDENTIAL COMMITTEE ON INFORMATION LITERACY (1989) Final Report(Chicago, IL, American Library Association).

ARMSTRONG, C. (2001) A study of the use of electronic information systems by higher education students inthe UK, Program, 35, pp. 241–262.

ASSOCIATION OF COLLEGE AND RESEARCH LIBRARIES (2000) Information Literacy Competency Standards forHigher Education [online] (Chicago, IL, American Library Association). Available at: http://www.ala.org/acrl/ilcomstan.html [checked 15 October 2001].

AUSTRALIAN EDUCATION COUNCIL (1992) Key Competencies. Report to the Committee to Advise the AustralianEducation Council and Ministers of Vocational Education, Employment and Training on Employment RelatedKey Competencies for Post Compulsory Education and Training (The Mayer Report) (Canberra, AustralianEducation Council). Available at: http://www.detya.gov.au/nbeet/publications/pdf/92_36.pdf [checked 15October 2001].

AUSTRALIAN LIBRARY AND INFORMATION ASSOCIATION, SPECIAL INTEREST GROUP ON INFORMATION LITERACY

(2001) Statement on Information Literacy for all Australians [online] (Kingston, Australian Library andInformation Association). Available at: http://www.alia.org.au/groups/infolit/information.literacy.html[checked 15 October 2001].

BAWDEN, D. (2001) Information and digital literacies: a review of concepts, Journal of Documentation, 57, pp.218–259.

BELTON, V., JOHNSTON, B. & WALLS, L. (2001) Developing key skills at Strathclyde Business School throughthe integrative core, in: C. HOCKINGS & I. MOORE (Eds) Innovations in Teaching Business and Management(Birmingham, Staff and Educational Development Association).

BIGGS, J. (1999) Teaching for Quality Learning at University (Buckingham, Open University Press).BRANCOLINI, K.R. & HEYNS, E.P. (1998) Implementing an assessment plan for information literacy, in: Living

the Future II: Selected Conference Proceedings [online] (Tucson, AZ, University of Arizona). Available at:http://dizzy.library.arizona.edu/conference/ltf2/papers/iu42398.html [checked 15 October 2001].

BRUCE, C. (1997a) The Seven Faces of Information Literacy (Adelaide, Auslib Press).BRUCE, C. (1997b) The relational approach: a new model for information literacy, New Review of Information

and Library Research, 3, pp. 1–22.BRUCE, C. (1999) Workplace experiences of information literacy, International Journal of Information Manage-

ment, 19, pp. 33–47.BRUCE, C. (2000) Information literacy research: dimensions of the emerging collective consciousness,

Australian Academic and Research Libraries, 31, pp. 91–109.BRUCE, C.S. & CANDY, P.C. (Eds) (2000) Information Literacy around the World: advances in programs and

research (Wagga Wagga, Charles Sturt University Centre for Information Studies).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 1

9:05

01

May

201

3


BUSCHMAN, J. & WARNER, D.A. (2001) Wider access to higher education in the United States: an evaluativecase study of the library, in: Centre for Research in Lifelong Learning Researching Widening Access:international perspectives: conference proceedings (Glasgow, Glasgow Caledonian University).

CALDERHEAD, V. (2000) Reflections on information confusion in chemistry information learning: the meaningof the shift from library instruction to information literacy, Research Strategies, 16, pp. 285–299.

CANDY, P.C., CREBERT, G. & O’LEARY, J. (1994) Developing Lifelong Learners through Undergraduate Education[online], National Board of Employment, Education and Training Report; 28 (Canberra, AustralianGovernment Publishing Service). Available at: http://www.detya.gov.au/nbeet/publications/pdf/94_21.pdf[Checked 15 October 2001].

CARBO, T. (1997) Mediacy: knowledge and skills to navigate the information superhighway, in: InfoethicsConference; Monte Carlo, Monaco; 10–12 March 1997 [online] (Paris, UNESCO). Available at: http://www.unesco.org/webworld/infoethics/speech/carbo.htm [checked 15 October 2001].

CAREY, J.O. (1998) Library skills, information skills, and information literacy: implications for teaching andlearning, School Library Media Quarterly, 1. Available at: http://www.ala.org/aasl/SLMQ/skills.html[checked 15 October 2001].

CATTS, R. (2000) Confirmation of phases in the relational model of information literacy, in: K. APPLETON, C.MACPHERSON & D. ORR (Eds) Lifelong Learning Conference: selected papers (Yeppoon, Central Queensland,Central Queensland University).

CENTRE FOR STUDIES IN ADVANCED LEARNING TECHNOLOGY, LANCASTER UNIVERSITY (2001) NetworkedLearning in Higher Education [online] (Lancaster, Lancaster University). Available at: http://csalt.lancs.ac.uk/jisc/ [checked 15 October 2001].

COUNCIL OF AUSTRALIAN UNIVERSITY LIBRARIANS (2001) Information Literacy Standards [online] (Can-berra, Council of Australian University Librarians). Available at: http://www.caul.edu.au/caul-doc/InfoLitStandards2001.doc [checked 15 October 2001].

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, TRAINING AND YOUTH AFFAIRS (2000) Learning for the Knowledge Society: aneducation and training action plan for the information economy (Canberra, Department of Education Trainingand Youth Affairs). Available at: http://www.detya.gov.au/schools/publications/2000/learning.pdf[checked 15 October 2001].

DREW, S. (1998) Key Skills in Higher Education: background and rationale (Birmingham, Staff and EducationalDevelopment Association).

EISENBERG, M.B. & BERKOWITZ, R.E. (2001) The Big6 Skills Information Problem Solving Approach [online](Richmond Beach, WA, Big6). Available at: http://www.big6.com/[checked 15 October 2001].

GIBBONS, M. (1998) Higher Education Relevance in the 21st Century [online] (Washington, World Bank).Available at: http://www.worldbank.org/html/extdr/educ/edu-pb/giboeng3.pdf [checked 15 October2001].

GUTIERREZ, C. & WANG, J. (2001) A comparison of an electronic vs. print workbook for information literacyinstruction, Journal of Academic Librarianship, 27, pp. 208–212.

HEPWORTH, M. (2000) The challenge of incorporating information literacy into the undergraduate curricu-lum, in: S. CORRALL & H. HATHAWAY (Eds) Seven Pillars of Wisdom? Good Practice in Information SkillsDevelopment (London, Standing Conference of National and University Libraries).

INGWERSEN, P. (1992) Information Retrieval Interaction (London, Taylor Graham).JOHNSTON, B. & WEBBER, S. (1999) Information literacy as an academic discipline: an action research

approach to developing a credit bearing class for business undergraduates, in: M. KLASSON, B.LOUGHRIDGE & S. LOOF (Eds) New Fields for Research in the 21st Century. Proceedings of the 3rd BritishNordic Conference on Library and Information Studies; 12–14 April 1999, Boras, Sweden (Boras, UniversityCollege of Boras).

JOINT, N. & KEMP, B. (2000) Information skills training in support of a joint electronic library in Glasgow:the GAELS project approach to library courseware development, Aslib Proceedings, 52, pp. 301–312.

KING, A. (1993) From sage on the stage to guide on the side, College Teaching, 41, pp. 30–35.KUHLTHAU, C.C. (1993) A principle of uncertainty for information seeking, Journal of Documentation, 49, pp.

339–355.LIMBERG, L. (1999) Three conceptions of information seeking and use, in: T.D. WILSON & D.K. ALLEN

Exploring the Contexts of Information Behaviour. Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Researchin Information Needs, Seeking and Use in Different Contexts, 13–15 August 1998, Sheffield, UK (London,Taylor Graham).

MARTON, F. & SALJO, D. (1976) On qualitative differences in learning—I: Outcomes and process, BritishJournal of Educational Psychology, 46, pp. 4–11.

NATIONAL COMMITTEE OF ENQUIRY INTO HIGHER EDUCATION (1997) Higher Education in the Learning Society(The Dearing Report) (London, HMSO).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 1

9:05

01

May

201

3


PARLIAMENT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA (1991) Australia as an Information Society: grasping newparadigms. Report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee for Long Term Strategies (The JonesReport) (Canberra, Australian Government Publishing Service).

PAUSCH, L.M. & POPP, M.P. (1997) Assessment of information literacy: lessons from the Higher EducationAssessment Movement, in: Chicago Association of College and Research Libraries ACRL 1997 NationalConference Papers [online]. Available at: http://www.ala.org/acrl/paperhtm/d30.html [checked 15 October2001].

POWIS, C. (2000) Developing information skills for students: whose responsibility? Plenary discussion, in: S.CORRALL & H. HATHAWAY (Eds) Seven Pillars of Wisdom? Good Practice in Information Skills Development(London).

QUALITY ASSURANCE AGENCY FOR HIGHER EDUCATION (2000) Programme Specifications [online] (Gloucester,Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education). Available at: http://www.qaa.ac.uk/crntwork/progspec/contents.htm [checked 15 October 2001].

RADER, H.B. (1999) The learning environment: then, now and later: 30 years of teaching information skills,Reference Services Review, 27, pp. 219–224.

RADER, H.B. (2000) A silver anniversary: 25 years of reviewing the literature related to use instruction,Reference Services Review, 28, pp. 290–296.

RAMSDEN, P. (1992) Learning to Teach in Higher Education (London, Routledge).SARACEVIC, T. (1999) Information science, Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 50, pp.

1051–1063.SPITZER, K., EISENBERG, M. & LOWE, C. (1998) Information Literacy: essential skills for the information age

(Syracuse, NY, Information Resources Publications, Syracuse University).TASK FORCE ON INFORMATION SKILLS (1999) Information Skills in Higher Education (London, Standing

Conference of National and University Libraries).TOWN, S. (2000) Wisdom or welfare: the seven pillars model, in: S. CORRALL & H. HATHAWAY (Eds) Seven

Pillars of Wisdom? Good Practice in Information Skills Development (London, Standing Conference ofNational and University Libraries).

UK NATIONAL INVENTORY PROJECT (2000) What is the Information Society? (London, UK National InventoryProject). Available at: http://www.inforamtion-society.org.uk/Pages/Infosoc.htm [checked 15 October2001].

WEBBER, S. & JOHNSTON, B. (2000) Conceptions of information literacy: new perspectives and implications,Journal of Information Science, 26, pp. 381–397.

WEBBER, S. & JOHNSTON, B. (2001) The Information Literacy Place [online] (Sheffield, University of Sheffield).Available at: http://dis.shef.ac.uk/literacy/

WEBBER, S. & JOHNSTON, B. (2002) Information literacy and community: a UK perspective in: D. BOOKER

(Ed.) Proceedings of the 5th National Information Literacy Conference (Adelaide, Auslib Press).WHITSON, K. (1998) Key skills and curriculum reform, Studies in Higher Education, 23, pp. 307–319.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 1

9:05

01

May

201

3

Date post:	09-Dec-2016
Category:	Documents
Upload:	sheila
View:	223 times
Download:	0 times

Information Literacy in Higher Education: A review and case study

Documents