Introduction

Information literacy has been the subject of intense interest in the educational library sector and a number of literature reviews have resulted. These reviews include: Bruce (2000) who explored the territories of information literacy; Bawden (2001) who considered the various approaches to information literacy; and more recently Corrall’s (2007) examination of information literacy in the context of higher education. Rader (2002) has covered information literacy development from 1973 to 2002, while Johnson and Jent (2005) and Johnson et al. (2007) have explored the literature in relation to information literacy instruction. Hughes et al. (2005) updated the work of Bruce (2000), by examining the developments in Australian information literacy research and practice. Internationally, Virkus (2003) has explored information literacy from a European perspective. Given the extent of these reviews this chapter does not attempt to be in any way inclusive of all that has been written in this sector. Instead literature has been selected for this chapter to demonstrate the range of themes that appear to be representative of the current thinking and practice of information literacy in the higher education and academic library landscape.

The reviews noted above reveal that the conception of information literacy as it is practised in higher education and academic libraries is bounded within a landscape that has a clearly defined user population and is influenced by perceptions and tensions related to learning and teaching in educational environments. Within this sector, information literacy loosely falls into a number of landscapes (primary, secondary and tertiary education), each driven by their own specific discourses and practices. Discourses are defined as the ‘social arena in which common understandings are manifest in language, social practices and structure’ (Fletcher, 1999,p. 143). It is through discourse that rules, conventions, structures and statements about practice are regulated (Mills, 2003).

In general within the context of academic librarianship, the discourse of information literacy is centred on effective access and operationalization of information by the individual, and this has led to debates about what information literacy is and how it should be described and practised in this setting. In one camp there are advocates who conceptualize information literacy as a skills-based literacy, where information literacy is equated to the information skills required in the information search process. In the other camp information literacy is conceptualized as a complex phenomenon, which acts as a catalyst for learning. Most often this reflects the research and critical thinking processes, which are understood by academic librarians and educators. Similarly, debates also exist in the literature about how information literacy should be taught by either being embedded in subjects or as a stand-alone specialism.

In the earlier periods of information literacy education, teaching efforts were loosely focused on orientation and bibliographic instruction (the use of the library and its tools), and later on user education. Examples of this approach are still evident in the literature. In more recent times there has been increasing interest towards developing pedagogy that incorporates information literacy practices. This accounts for the complex features of the phenomenon and emphasizes critical features, such as reflective practice and critical thinking.

This distinction in conceptualizing information literacy arises from epistemological and methodological differences, which influence how information literacy is researched and therefore understood (e.g. behaviourist versus constructivist or quantitative versus qualitative research approaches). These variations in perspective have led to tensions between librarian practitioners who tend to adopt a library-centric approach to information literacy and focus on the development of effective searching skills, and researchers who focus on information literacy as part of the learning process.

In the 1980s and 1990s academic librfarians saw the concept and research of information literacy as being invariably linked to a relationship with print. However, with the explosion of information on the Internet and an increase in digitized and ‘born digital’ information, the phenomenon is increasingly linked with digital literacy and other forms of information and communication technologies. The online delivery of education by many universities has provided librarians with a strategic opportunity to shift the debate about information literacy to a whole of institution level, promoting information literacy as a generic information competency and a necessary graduate outcome (Corrall, 2007, 2008).

In this sector information literacy is also associated with specific practices and tools, which shape how we understand it and how it is manifest as a practice. The focus of information literacy has largely been centred on instrumental or cognitive views of learning, which have historically been framed within a Cartesian approach to learning. In this approach the mind becomes the focus of learning and other forms of information access (e.g. body and oracy) are considered as relatively minor players in the information literacy process. This approach has contributed to the early cognitivist/behaviouralist models that often frame information literacy objectively in terms of access to knowledge (viewed as external and discoverable). It also contributed to the development of information competencies, skills and attributes that must be demonstrated by the individual, in order for them to be assessed as being information literate.

When we talk about information literacy in the education sector we often talk about the development and application of skills. Here we refer to the activities of information literacy, such as developing strategies to meet information needs through activities such as information seeking, selecting and evaluating information, and the ethical presentation of information in the process of learning in a formal educational framework (Lennox and Walker, 1992). We also talk about the attributes of an information literate person, which centre on awareness of information, sources and strategies for accessing and using information (Doyle, 1992). The result of this understanding of information literacy is reflected in the number of definitions that focus on describing it in relation to behaviour, and a range of standards and frameworks that aim to guide information literacy development in the education sector; see, for example, ALA (American Library Association), SCONUL (Society of College, National and University Libraries), ANZIIL (Australian and New Zealand Institute for Information Literacy) Standards.

Foundation studies of information literacy in the higher education sector

During the late 1980s and early 1990s information literacy began to emerge as a significant area of research interest in curriculum studies, education and library practice. Since then there has been a significant amount of empirical research relating to information literacy in this sector. In the 1990s a small number of foundation studies changed the way in which information literacy was understood, in addition to broadening our perspective of what information literacy is and what being information literate means. There also exists a plethora of smaller-scale studies and articles, some empirical but many anecdotal. Practitioners who are interested in championing information literacy in their libraries generally undertake these. They are also used to raise awareness of their professional abilities as information specialists and to champion the critical role of the library in educational practice and in lifelong learning.

The Delphi study conducted by Doyle (1992) aimed at seeking consensus among experts and scholars of information literacy whose thinking had influenced the discourse about information literacy up until the 1990s. As a result of this study, a consensual definition of information literacy as ‘the ability to access, evaluate and use information from a variety of sources’ (p. 2) was produced. In addition, a set of attributes were developed by Doyle (1992, p. 2) to characterize the concept. These attributes reflect the research process and included:

Doyle also linked information literacy to the concept of lifelong learning, by suggesting that the accomplishment of these skills empowered individuals to make informed choices throughout life.

Doyle’s pioneering study has been used as an exemplar in the educational sector and illustrates a behaviourist approach to information literacy, whereby the attributes of an information literate person, were identified and considered as separate from the context. Becoming information literate in an education context is understood as a subjective process whereby the individual experiences information as objective and external. In particular, it underpinned the development of information literacy standards and frameworks such as ACRL (Association of College and Research Libraries, 2000) in the USA, ANZIIL (Australian and New Zealand Institute for Information Literacy) in Australia and New Zealand (Bundy, 2004), and SCONUL (Society of College, National and University Libraries, 1999) in the UK and Ireland. In this context, information literacy is viewed as a generic skill, which once taught, is transferable across sectors.

In 1988, Kuhlthau undertook a qualitative study on information seeking that employed a constructivist approach. This study moved the conception of information literacy away from the development of library-based skills towards conceiving information literacy in relation to learning. Kuhlthau adopted a ‘user perspective’ in her qualitative study on secondary students’ experiences of information seeking, producing a model of the information search process, which illustrated how students learnt from a range of information sources (Kuhlthau, 2004, p. 163). Kuhlthau (2004) contributed to the emerging information literacy agenda with her description of information literacy as a way of learning from a variety of sources rather than as a discrete set of information skills. This is highlighted by Kuhlthau when she suggests that ‘there is a serious deficit in the advice given in many programs … Information skills instruction that forms the basis of many information literacy programs frequently skips over the critical stages of reflecting, constructing, and internalising to learn and understand for one’s self’ (p. 163). Over a number of years this model has been refined by Kuhlthau and sets out common behaviours and patterns that are experienced by users when they undertake the process of seeking information (Kuhlthau, 2006).

A significant shift occurred in our understanding of information literacy with the publication of the Seven Faces of Information Literacy (Bruce, 1997). For the library and education sector this pioneering study heralded a change in the way information literacy could be conceived. Bruce’s phenomenographic study (1996a) examined conceptions of information literacy among higher education academics, librarians and other workers who interacted intensively with information in this sector. Phenomenography is a research approach employed predominantly in teaching and learning environments, which uses strategies and techniques to identify variation in complex learning experiences, such as those that come about when a student interacts with information. The phenomenographic study, which described seven conceptions of experiences with information literacy recasts the framework developed through Doyle’s (1992) research, by moving away from a behaviourist model, to describing information literacy as varying conceptions of experiencing information (Bruce, 1996a, p. 16). The research by Bruce (1996a) identified the subject–object relationships from which information use is conceptualized. Two key elements of information literacy as it is manifest in educational contexts were represented within each conception, these were information use and information technology. A third element was different in each conceptualization giving each of the seven faces an individual character (Bruce, 1996a).

In Bruce’s (1996a) study, experiences of information (faces 1–4) are viewed as objective and external to the individual. These faces related to technology, information sources, information process (the solving of problems) and the information control conception. The knowledge construction conception (face 5) is viewed as subjective and focuses on information use as the object of reflection becomes internalized (Bruce, 1997, p. 115). Bruce also viewed information literacy as being transformational; however, the transformation did not occur to the individual, but to others with whom the individual interacts (face 6) and to information, which is transformed into knowledge.

In identifying the scope of her research, Bruce illustrates the earlier point, that how information literacy is viewed and the way in which it is understood will be directly related to the discourse and discursive practices of the specific setting. Bruce makes this point when she states that ‘it cannot be assumed that the experiences of higher educators match those of the information users in other workplaces’ (Bruce, 1999, p. 157). Bruce’s study of information literacy has provided the catalyst for many other phenomenographic information literacy studies, particularly in the area of learning, e.g. Boon et al., (2007), Edwards (2006), Limberg (2000), (2004)and Lupton (2008).

The research of Kuhlthau, Doyle and Bruce has been influential in developing the research agenda within the information literacy field, by introducing and articulating the concept, describing the experience and connecting it to other well known activities such as the information seeking process. In the next section we will see how this research has been translated into definitions of information literacy.

Definitions and descriptions of information literacy in the educational sector

There are numerous definitions of information literacy (Doyle, 1992; Behrens, 1994; Bruce, 1996a; Webber and Johnston, 2000); however, two types appear to dominate the literature. These two highlight the tensions that exist between the various approaches to understanding the phenomenon. The first emphasizes information literacy from a library-centric approach clearly focusing on skills and abilities and reveals the applied and instrumental nature of information literacy as it is articulated, taught and practised within a formal learning context. The second type of definition of information literacy, which has been used more recently, tends to emphasize the learning experience created when an individual engages and uses information.

In higher education and library contexts, information literacy is also strongly connected with the tools of learning (i.e. library catalogues, print media and digital technology sources). Therefore, descriptions and definitions focus on the individual’s ability to develop skills and competencies in the navigation of information through textual and technological forms. In this context the individual develops and demonstrates an awareness of information sources and information skills in the process of engaging with content. The most frequently used, cited and adapted definition in the literature, is drawn from the American Library Association (ALA) Presidential Committee on Information Literacy (1989, p. 1). This definition highlights a range of behaviours required of an information literate person: ‘To be information literate, a person must be able to recognize when information is needed and have the ability to locate, evaluate and use effectively the needed information.’

The ALA definition characterizes an information literate person as one who is able to consciously identify the need for information after which they must have the ability to execute a range of skills. These include the ability to effectively use the required information to make judgements about information against the setting from which the need has arisen. This definition was the starting point for the development of standards and guidelines for information literacy (particularly in the school and higher education sector). However, other definitions of information literacy have focused more on articulating the features of the information experience and the learning that is produced when these information skills are applied effectively.

As described in the last section, it was the groundbreaking research of Bruce that extended the ALA functional definition of the behaviours of locating and managing information to include the outcomes of these behaviours. Focusing more on the intellectual capabilities, Bruce (1998, p. 25) suggests that: ‘The ability to locate, manage and use information has been labelled “Information literacy”. Today information literacy is recognized as making an important contribution to decision making, problem solving, independent learning, continuing professional development and research.’ Bruce’s research is centred around the way people experience information in the higher education sector, and variations on that experience. In the last 10 years Bruce (2000, p. 97) has made a strong link between the phenomenon and learning, recognizing that in an educational context, information literacy is an ‘appreciation of the complex ways of interacting with information. It is a way of thinking and reasoning about aspects of subject matter’. The relational nature of this interaction may combine aspects of computer literacy, learning to learn and information competencies and skills, including searching, locating, evaluating, selecting and organizing information, with the user becoming aware of the different ways of experiencing the use of information (Bruce, 2004, p. 9).

Placing a focus on students’ and academics’ understanding of the complexity of the information experience, Johnston and Webber (2003) also understand information literacy as a combination of behaviours appropriate to a specific setting. They suggest that information literacy is: ‘… the adoption of appropriate information behaviour to obtain, through whatever channel of medium, information well fitted to information needs, together with critical awareness of the importance of wise and ethical use of information in society (Johnston and Webber, 2003, p. 336).

Finally, Lupton (2004) describes information literacy as a ‘learning approach’ (p. 89) and has focused on the learning elements of information literacy, connecting the phenomenon with higher-order thinking processes that facilitates learning throughout life. Lupton describes information literacy broadly as having the following components: ‘… library research skills and “IT literacy” but it is broader than these. Information literacy is not just about finding and presenting information, it is about higher order analysis, synthesis, critical thinking and problem solving. It involves seeking and using information for independent learning, lifelong learning, participative citizenship and social responsibility’ (Lupton, 2004, cited in Lupton et al., 2004, p. 1).

While only four definitions are presented here, from the many variations that exist, present in each, are the most common features of information literacy as defined and described in the education/library sectors. These features are: the individual’s ability to define, locate, access and manage information; to use and present information ethically; to employ effective information seeking skills and information behaviours; and to think about information critically.

Critiques of information literacy

The current approaches to information literacy in the educational landscape are not, however, without critics who suggest that these views promote a largely unproblematic and often narrow conception. Challenging both the ‘positivist philosophy’ and ‘information problem solving’ aspects of information literacy, Kapitzke (2003, p. 49) argues that current information literacy frameworks based on these concepts are ‘incompatible with emergent concepts of knowledge and epistemology for digital and online environments’, which underpin the multiliteracy approach and have gained currency in education. In advocating a more critical information literacy approach, Kapitzke argues that the current frameworks fail to problematize the notion of information, its production and reproduction and the underlying influences that lead to and influence its creation. Kapitzke (2003) suggests that current explications of information literacy fail to:

Further, Kapitzke (2003, pp. 50–51) suggests that by focusing only on the written word, the current information literacy approach is centred on a single mode of ‘representation and meaning’. Also, this singularity does not account for the multimodal nature of information access through diverse ranges of sources beyond print (i.e. sounds, vision, gesture). According to Kapitzke, a broader approach and more critical approach to information literacy is required, one that can account for the multimodal range of information access and dissemination tools, and the new forms of literacy that are coupled to this tools. She suggests that: ‘A multiliteracies framework. recognises that meaning making has always been multimodal and increasingly multimediated. The concept of a multiplicity of literacies extends beyond the locus of textual semiosis beyond language and print to sound, visuals, gestures and space, thereby giving legitimacy to what were hitherto marginalised communications media and textualities …’. (Kapitzke, 2003, pp. 50–51).

Drawing from empirical research in other sectors, I have (2003) argued that current educational conceptions of information literacy tend to reify the phenomenon and promote it in generic and functional terms that are inappropriate for other sectors, where the focus is not on individual practice but on collective practice. I suggested that the educational sector treats information literacy as a ‘single and discrete operational competency rather than as a constellation of competencies that engage the synchronous and serial applications of a range of perceptual, cognitive and process skills that together constitute a way of knowing’ (p. 88). In addition, the individual and textual focus of information literacy in the education sector, fails to take into account the social and physical experience of human interaction that frame the collaborative and embodied nature of the experience in workplace sectors (Lloyd, 2005).

When referring to the ACRL (2000) standard for information literacy, Harris (2008) notes that any discussion or recognition of community, including the notion of a learning community and community of practices as the location for information literacy learning and practice, has been removed in favour of individual learning. Harris (2008, p. 254) argues that:

Information literacy as practice in educational settings

In the higher education sector, conceptions of information literacy have been generated largely by qualitative research approaches. These qualitative frameworks are generally translated by librarians into instructional models related to developing and demonstrating a range of information skills and behaviours. In addition, attempts have been made to quantify or measure these skills (see Catts, 2000). Common themes presented in this landscape relate to practitioner understanding of information literacy as an individual competency and the need to develop information-related skills in students. However, the way forward in this respect is not clear-cut. There is debate among practitioners about the best way to deliver information literacy education/instruction (e.g. stand-alone classes, integration or embedding of information literacy into curriculum), the application of prescriptive standards and guidelines, and the best way to assess information literacy. Underlying this debate is the nature of library/faculty partnerships, and whether librarians are adequately prepared through their own professional education and, therefore, have the requisite pedagogical knowledge and teaching skills to work with faculty and to take on teaching roles. Johnston and Webber (2003) have identified problems with these current practices, and have taken an innovative position by advocating information literacy as a separate discipline, rather than integrating information literacy into a curriculum model.

In a set of longitudinal studies on information literacy in academic libraries in Canada, Julien (2005) identified that information literacy is firmly connected to instruction around research strategies, use of technology, critical evaluation of the quality and usefulness of information, maximizing students’ ability to locate information and find various sources of information. This view seems characteristic of how the construct of information literacy is understood by practitioners worldwide. Overall, Julien found that instructional classes and one-to-one instruction to be the norm with undergraduates continuing to be the focus of instruction and orientation. The importance of this study, however, is that it shows that librarians recognized the need to improve methods of teaching that appears to underlie a greater self-reflection on the nature of pedagogical expertise.

As modern universities and their libraries continue to move towards the provision of more distance education services there is increasing application of e-strategies and a need to develop effective online programmes and resources. This reflects on the university library collections, which are more focused on an increasing number and range of databases, ebooks and web 2.0 technologies (e.g. podcasts, blogs and wikis), used in course delivery. Consequently, the library practitioner focus tends to be towards developing information literacy instruction programmes through web-based tutorials. Increased publishing output on this topic is apparent and will continue to be an important area of research, which according to Johnson and Jent (2005, p. 487), reflects the trend of students as ‘more and more are accessing libraries via the internet only and the instruction community is working to respond to this growing demand’.

Where face-to-face classes exist, there will be an emphasis on understanding database searching and the application of reference type skills, such as evaluation of content and source. In this instance there is a focus on the librarian as teacher or part of faculty and a deep commitment to information literacy as a pedagogical practice. There exists an increasing emphasis on developing pedagogically influenced models that aim to incorporate information literacy with learning theory and practice (e.g. Queensland University of Technology Information literacy Framework, http://www.library.qut.edu.au/services/teaching/infolit/framework.jsp/). Encouraging this movement of librarians to become deeply reflective practitioners about their pedagogical praxis, Jacobs (2008, p. 256) argues that: ‘If we are going to address the issues of librarians’ roles within educational endeavours systemically, we, as a discipline, need to foster reflective, critical habits of mind regarding pedagogical praxis …’.

Education for information literacy practitioners

With increased interest in information literacy within this sector, the question of effective information literacy education for librarians also arises. Lindauer (2004) reports that while much has been written about effective teaching of information literacy and the strategic importance of assessment, there is little attention paid to strategies for the development of this practice. This author argues that this may relate to the academic library community being uncertain about how well their own training equips them to teach information literacy.

Elmborg (2006) suggests that the changing nature of reference from individual enquiry to group enquiry has led to shifts in demands for the librarian as service provider to librarian as educator and facilitator. This shift will result in a need for library education to ‘develop new guiding philosophies’ (p. 192) in order to better equip frontline practitioners to be effective trainers. With expanded roles that include being part of the faculty staff ‘participating in curriculum revision and instructional initiatives’ (p. 192). The author reports that not only do librarians feel unprepared for these roles but also that librarian education must better address these new roles. Elmborg suggests that ‘librarians and library educators can better engage the educational climate on campuses by defining academic librarianship through the scholarship of teaching and learning in general, and the scholarship of literacy in particular’ (p. 193). The need for effective teaching and assessment strategies, which will enable librarians to take on more complex and demanding teaching roles, is also echoed by Stubbings and Frank (2007). They argue that in order to promote the information literacy and learning connection and to further enhance students’ learning experiences, ‘librarians need a set of teaching skills, to further substantiate the educational aspect of information literacy’ (p. 157).

In order for practitioners to become more engaged with these new information literacy roles, Jacobs (2008, p. 260) considers it important that library and information studies courses cover not only:

Collaborative practices: librarian and faculty relationships

The practice of collaboration continues to receive attention in the education landscape. Factors that enhance collaboration between librarians, faculty and teachers have been analysed by Ivey (2003) and Leong (2006) with the latter identifying the ‘What’s in it for me’ factor as the single most persuasive argument (p. 10) to use with teachers. Having a shared understanding of how ‘information literacy is developed’ and having the ‘appropriate staffing resources to develop and deliver the programs’ is seen as vital (Ivey 2003, p. 100).

Conditions that enhance collaboration were identified by Ivey (2003, p. 100) as ‘positive working relationships and effective communication’ strategies. Leong (2006, p. 10) supports this and suggests that:

Specific skill sets that librarians need include teaching, negotiation and advocacy skills. Further knowledge of pedagogy and education ‘speak’ enable librarians to ‘push the right buttons’ in an educational environment (Stubbings and Franklin 2007, p. 157). Such skills and knowledge need to be developed in library schools. According to Stubbings and Franklin (2007) currently librarians are developing these skills through extra study, workshops and conferences, for example, the Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals teaching workshops in the UK.

At the University of Melbourne, Australia, information literacy library practices, staffing profiles, university policy and programmes were refocused to drive stronger information literacy outcomes. The proponents reported that: ‘The 12 former Library members of LRS were given a clear mandate to seek opportunities to work with academics to embed information literacy into their courses and to build communities of information literacy practice’ (Bridgland and Whitehead, 2005, p. 56). Based on the organizational approach that Melbourne University’s information literacy project took at the time, the authors believed that there were important elements for the long-term sustainability that other institutions need to consider; these were: ‘The institutional endorsement of information literacy and the creation of a group of information specialists whose key role is to work with academics on the embedding of information literacy are beneficial, but they cannot work unless connections are built between individuals: social capital is an important factor in success’ (Bridgland and Whitehead, 2005, p. 58). Providing some more detail on the role of the information specialists, Bridgland and Whitehead envisioned that information specialists would be educators, providing support for learning and teaching. As such, they would have a strong educational background, coupled with sound knowledge of teaching methodology. Added to this, information literacy educators would be experts in the application and integration of information and communication technologies into the learning environment (Bridgland and Whitehead, 2005, p. 55).

Programmes and frameworks for information literacy education

Programmes and frameworks for information literacy education also populate the literature from the higher education sector. The literature provides examples and models that conceptualize information literacy as well as highlight effective and innovative practice.

The six frames for information literacy (Bruce et al., 2007) have been developed as a conceptual model for understanding how different views of information literacy influence pedagogical approaches to learning and teaching. The authors argue that the theoretical perspective that influences the way learning and teaching are understood will affect the delivery of information literacy education. This in turn will effect the development of information literacy curriculum design. These authors emphasize that information literacy is not a ‘theory of learning’ (p. 37) but ‘rather that peoples’ approach to information literacy and information literacy education are informed by the views of teaching, learning and information literacy which they adopt either implicitly or explicitly in different contexts’ (p. 37). Designed as a conceptual tool and intended to orient reflection on the varied ways of seeing, developing and delivering information literacy curriculum, the ‘frames’ are described by Bruce et al., (2007, pp. 40–42) as:

This final frame (the relational frame) connects the content, learning to learn and experiential frame together. Therefore, it demonstrates that ‘students experience information literacy in a range of ways that are more or less complex and powerful’ (p. 43) and learning is the ability to adopt the experience of this complexity (p. 43). Information literacy from this perspective is, therefore, not about information skill or information behaviour development but rather about ways of interacting and experiencing information. The six frames provides a balanced and powerful tool for analysing how information literacy is viewed contextually and how that view influences the manifestation of information literacy practice.

The idea that reflection is central in ‘bringing about learning’ is identified by Hughes et al., (2007, p. 60). These authors argue that there is great disparity between learner’s digital competence and their critical use of information (p. 59). By focusing on specific aspects of learning—e.g. reviewing the literature (Bruce, 1996b), searching the Internet (Edwards and Bruce, 2002) and the use of online information (Hughes et al., 2006, p. 80)—the authors propose a series of models that take into consideration the vast differences that occur in student learning and ability through cultural, linguistic and educational experiences and the need to foster reflective use of information. International students in Australia are particularly affected because of their cultural and linguistic challenges in adapting in foreign learning environments, ‘Extensive personal use of online technologies and “net-saviness” often contrast with unreflective approaches to information use’ (Hughes et al., 2007, p. 59). These models were progressively built, and they: ‘all combine principles of reflective practice, action research and IL in a framework that provides a sound theoretical base for fostering a critical approach to information use for learning’ (Hughes et al., 2007, p. 60).

An important feature of these models is that they do not focus on specific competencies that have been ascribed for information literacy within the educational sector. Instead, they aim to promote an approach to information literacy that focuses on the students’ experience of information use and attempts to frame this experience in a way that is accessible to curriculum designers and teachers (Hughes et al., 2007). However, if this is the claim, then further work will need to be undertaken to understand the social and embodied experiences that are increasingly being recognized as part of the learning process.

Information literacy standards and frameworks in higher education

The idea that information literacy practices and process can be standardized has been a significant feature of the higher education landscape for the last 20 years and links to the assessment agenda. Librarians, particularly in the higher education sector, who have been the traditional champions of information literacy, have been active in translating conceptions of information literacy drawn from a limited field of empirical research, into lists of competencies, skills, attributes and behaviours. As this landscape is characterized by the relationship between individuals, codified knowledge, and the significant use of technology, then information literacy is focused on engaging with learning about sources of information and developing skills considered ‘transferable’ into other settings (Lloyd, 2003). This translation of research into practice has led to the development of frameworks, guidelines and standards for information literacy within this context.

An outcome of the research conducted by Doyle (1992) and Bruce (1996a), both discussed earlier, was the recognition of the contribution that information literacy made to learning, and the ‘assumed’ importance of information literacy as a generic skill, one that would enable an individual to continue learning throughout life. This recognition was widely accepted by librarians, particularly those in the higher education sector. It has led to the development of information literacy standards or frameworks that attempt to systematize the behaviours and skills of information literacy in a way that enables them to become assessable just as all other parts of the formal curriculum are.

In the USA, the ACRL standard is widely recognized as the definitive standard and it has been adopted in other countries also. The ACRL Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education define information literacy as a set of abilities requiring individuals to ‘recognise when information is needed and have the ability to locate, evaluate, and use effectively the needed information’ (ACRL, 2000). The framework is used for assessing information literacy by presenting a number of competencies, which can be used by librarians or academic staff as indicators for information literacy.

This approach to information literacy synthesizes key areas of desirable behaviour that mark an information literate student, i.e. the information literate individual is able to (ACRL 2000, p. 3):

To support the standards, ACRL produced Characteristics of programs of information literacy that illustrate best practices (2003a) for undergraduate information literacy programmes. This document claims to represent a meta-set of exemplary practices that characterize information literacy excellence. It was compiled using a web-based Delphi polling technique involving librarians, faculty and higher education administration. The key characteristics of a best practice programme can be categorized into two broad fields. These are (ACRL, 2003a):

However, despite the ACRL standards and guidelines being made widely available, Julien (2005, p. 311) reports a low uptake of their use in Canada and, furthermore, indicates that only ‘a small proportion (16%) of US libraries were using some information literacy standards’. Further: ‘. the best practices promoted by that organization, which include a wide range of organizational, planning, pedagogic, and evaluation recommendations (are not widely used)’ (Julien 2005, p. 310).In her longitudinal study of information literacy practices in Canadian libraries, Julien (2005) observed that parts of the ACRL standards were not being addressed in practice, and she indicated that: ‘Surprisingly, a significant proportion of respondents believed that librarians had no responsibility to teach an understanding of some ethical, economic, and sociopolitical information issues, an attitude clearly at odds with the ACRL standards.’ (p. 310).

In Australia, the most commonly used definition of information literacy is located within the Australian and New Zealand Information Literacy Framework. This definition was adopted and adapted from the US standards, initially by the Council of Australian University Librarians (2001) and later revised by ANZIIL (Australian and New Zealand Institute for Information Literacy) (Bundy, 2004). Information literacy is defined by these standards as the understanding and ability that enable an individual to ‘recognise when information is needed and have the capacity to locate, evaluate, and use effectively the needed information’ (p. 3). According to the ANZIIL standards information literate people ‘know when they need information, and are then able to identify, locate, evaluate, organise, and effectively use the information to address and help resolve personal, job related, or broader social issues and problems’ (p. 3).

The Australian and New Zealand framework, presents six core standards as the basis for information literacy acquisition, understanding and application by an individual (Bundy, 2004,p. 11). The information literate person:

In the UK, the SCONUL (Society of College, National and University Libraries) Task force originally published the Information skills model (1999), which was reconceptualized in 2004 as the Seven Pillars of Information Literacy model. This model recognizes information literacy as a hierarchical and progressive practice, with library and IT skills as the basic skills and information literacy as the higher-level concept within the information skills model. Drawing on the models from Bruce (1996a) and the work of Doyle (1992), Seven Pillars are described within this framework in which at the level of expert information use (i.e. information literate) a student should demonstrate the ability to:

SCONUL (2004)

All three frameworks—ACRL, ANZIIL, SCONUL—share a number of common elements, e.g. the ability to access information, recognition of the need for information, evaluation of information, manipulation and presentation of information and the understanding of ethical practices involved with information (Boon et al., 2007), and may be seen as focusing on the competency level of information literacy (e.g. the development of demonstrable and assessable areas of skill acquisition). While the frameworks share a number of common elements, they also differ in their approach to the student learning process. Andretta (2005) highlights the differences in the following way: ‘The main difference (between the frameworks) rests on the emphasis placed by ANZIIL and ACRL on the recursive knowledge construction approach, which provides a coherent framework for learning. SCONUL’s interpretation of the knowledge creation process is too linear to reflect fully the learner’s experience as it is based on a sequential progression’ (p. 53).

Irrespective of the framework adopted, Webber (2006) suggests that for information literacy to have maximum impact it must have resonance with the organization. Webber (p. 3) highlights this when she states that:

In relation to the ACRL standards and the Objectives for Information Literacy Instruction (ACRL, 2001), Harris (2008) warns against seeing these as definitive, or as indicators of knowledge about the broader aspects of information literacy. He suggests that:

Further, Jacobs (2008) suggests that information literacy standards and outcomes-based assessment need to be used judiciously, because if these are used as the only consideration then this ignores the ‘complex situatedness of information literacy’, and information literacy’s ‘tremendous potential for creative, critical and visionary thinking’ (p. 258). An important aspect of information literacy educators practice is the ability to recognize, reflect and understand the nature of ‘situatedness’ as identified by Jacobs (2008) or an individual learner’s community context and value systems as described by (Harris, 2008).

Generally, in the higher education sector, information literacy has been linked to developing an individual’s competency with information, with little recognition of the influence of community on the shaping of discourse or discursive practices that underpin competencies that are valued. Harris (2008) makes this point when he draws attention to broader aspects of information literacy and the need to consider the role of community in creating and influencing information literacy practice. He argues that: ‘The processes of creating, locating, evaluating, and using information in various forms do not happen in a vacuum, away from community contexts where meanings and values are in play’ (p. 250).

An argument in support of information literacy within the educational sector is that it prepares people for learning throughout life. However, as Harris (2008) has illustrated part of preparation for learning throughout life is an ability to understand how information is valued and knowledge constructed within the landscapes that students will populate once they have left their preparatory institutions. This is an area of information literacy research that has been silenced within current frameworks that continue to focus on the individual rather than the collaborative aspects of information literacy practice.

Advocacy, strategy and lifelong learning

Advocacy and strategy are also important themes in the literature for this sector, not only in terms of promoting the importance of information literacy as a critical aspect of learning, but also in terms of promoting the worth and value of the library profession. In the past 30 years librarians have championed the cause of information literacy as a prerequisite for effective learning both in education and throughout life. By doing so they have also attempted to place themselves in a strategic position in relation to their universities, thus helping to ensure the relevance and survival of the university library (sometimes the first to face funding cuts) and improve their status by reinventing their role as educators.

Bundy (2003) argues for broader ownership of the information literacy agenda and calls for greater collaboration between large academic libraries, public libraries and other agencies. He suggests that there are two fundamental reasons for this. The first relates to the lifelong learning agenda for which information literacy claims to be a prerequisite. The second relates to the rapid exponential increase in information and knowledge available in the educational sector that result in the rapid ‘obsolescence’ of content within first-degree courses. This means that students are increasingly being required to develop knowledge about how to learn and develop skills that will enable them to find and evaluate and apply new information in order to keep up with rapidly changing information environments (p. 6) and to develop skills that will meet the demands of ‘fast capitalism’ once they enter the workforce. In this respect, Bundy echoes the views of Zurkowski (1974) who first coined the term information literacy as a way of describing the information skills that would be required of service workers in the information age.

Part of the advocacy agenda has been the recognition that lifelong learning is not only the responsibility of the higher education sector but that greater collaboration between libraries across the various landscapes is required in order to strengthen support. Recognizing this need Bundy (2003) argues that broad connections need to be made beyond the formal educational institutions:

The need to advocate for the inclusion of information literacy as a key feature of university curriculum has been a major focus for academic librarians. In her 2002 background paper for UNESCO, the US National Commission on Libraries and Information Science, and the National Forum on Information Literacy (cited in Bruce, 2004), Bruce lists the key factors to the implementing information literacy programmes as:

At an international level the importance of strong advocacy mechanisms to promote information literacy in education was left in no doubt in the Alexandria Proclamation (Garner, 2006). One strand of the Meeting of Experts in Alexandria was dedicated to this critical and foundation aspect of information literacy. This strand identified the critical aspects of information literacy to be a focus of advocacy; the key recommendations were that there should be:

Garner (2006, p. 11)

Conclusions: information literacy practice in the education landscape

As indicated earlier, this section is a broad sweep of the literature and is only intended to cover the prevailing themes within this sector. In the higher education landscape the practice of information literacy is situated, shaped, interpreted and constituted through a Western educational discourse that emphasizes and values individual achievement. The information experience within this landscape is intended to develop a non-personalized view of information, knowledge and skills. Like literacy and learning, the educational landscape is a contested ground for information literacy practice. In this landscape there are two views of information literacy, one that views information as objective and external to the user and focuses on the development and application of skills that allow an engagement with codified knowledge. In this view, information literacy is a skill that is measurable. The other perspective also views information as objective, but emphasizes the subjective and transformational nature of this experience (Bruce, 1996a). From this view the emphasis is not on skill development but on enabling students to understand the variations in experiencing information in a reflective and critical way. This is not to say that either view is wrong, rather that the educational view of information literacy is one way of understanding the conception and this illustrates the importance of understanding how context and discourse prefigure specific understandings.

Despite these differing accounts of information literacy for this landscape there are a number of common features. The most important of these is that information is understood within this sector as objective and internal to the user; this understanding of information drives how information literacy is practised within this context. Therefore, information literacy can be characterized as:

In this setting, the information activities of librarians are focused around:

References