On the connections between information use and learning process
Information use and learning process are significant constituents of the concept of information literacy (Bruce 1997; Lupton 2004, p. 14). Major information literacy standards contain more or less explicit references to information use and learning. For example, the Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education developed by the Association for College and Research Libraries (ACRL, 2000) defines an information-literate individual as someone who is able to, among other things, incorporate selected information into their knowledge base, and use information effectively to accomplish a specific purpose. The constitutive role of information use and learning becomes even more significant in research approaches that conceptualize information literacy in terms of sociotechnical practice (Tuominen Savolainen & Talja 2005) or elaborate it through the connections between people, artifacts, texts and bodily experiences relevant for workplace learning (Lloyd 2007). In such approaches, information use and learning are not only characterized from the perspective of acquiring generic skills but also understood as dynamic ways of knowing.
To elaborate on the basic constituents of information literacy, this chapter makes an attempt to create a picture of how information use has been examined in relation to learning in relevant research literature. The task is complicated by the fact that no generally accepted definition of information use or learning is available. This is probably because every key concept is interpreted differently by researchers who subscribe to divergent theories that fit with their particular research questions. Moreover, it may be assumed that the practice of information use can vary with different ways of learning. The existence of multiple definitions is, therefore, unavoidable and, in this sense, not necessarily problematic.
In this chapter, central concepts in information use research are first outlined in an introductory manner. After this, the text characterizes the major orientations in learning research. The methods used to carry out this study are presented next. The main part of the chapter reviews the ways in which the relationships between information use and learning have been conceptualized in our data. At the end of the chapter, the connections are discussed, and the central conclusions are presented. Research publications from across disciplinary boundaries were not gathered for the analysis of the relationships between information use and learning, because this would have resulted in too much material. Still, we believe the findings to be theoretically interesting and useful for all scholars concerned with these phenomena.
Theoretical background
This section describes the central concepts so that the readers have a preliminary and general idea of the kinds of phenomena that this chapter considers. The definitions that follow do not imply that our analysis is only interested in certain notions of learning or information use.
Information, knowledge, information use, and knowledge use
Information use can be seen as an important, but under-studied, part of human information practices (Savolainen 2008, pp. 149–81). Information and use, like other concepts, are subject to multiple definitions. First, researchers have seldom attempted to probe into what is ultimately meant by ‘use’ in the context of information use (Kari 2007). Second, numerous differing views have been presented on how the concepts information and knowledge should be defined (Bates 2005; Case 2007, pp. 39–67; Ingwersen & Järvelin 2005, pp. 38–46). Among other things, sense perceptions, mental representations, communication processes, and the contents of a state of affairs have been referred to in connection with the concept of information (Case 2007, pp. 42–3). On the one hand, the ability of information to reduce uncertainty in decision-making has often been determined as the central property of information; on the other hand, information may in some cases increase uncertainty when it, say, presents new alternatives.
Michael Buckland (1991) characterizes the concept of information slightly more concretely by referring to three different aspects. First of all, information can be understood as a property of objects (for example, documents) which carry information (information-as-thing). Second, information can be understood as the process of being informed, which is connected to the transformation of ideas by the individual (information-as-process). Third, information can refer to the results that have been obtained through this process, for example, ideas about some matter that has been specified (information-as-knowledge). From the point of view of conceptual distinctions, the last-mentioned aspect is to some extent problematic, because it identifies information with knowledge.
The supporters of the cognitive approach (discussed in the next section) thematize information as something which changes the knowledge structures of the individual (Todd 1999). Knowledge is created when the received information changes the cognitive structures of its interpreter. Knowledge means a human being’s understanding of self at a certain moment and that being’s ideas of the surrounding world. In other words, knowledge is the interpretation of information that describes a state of affairs and/or sense made on the basis of information. The interpreter of information is ultimately the individual, who is influenced by the community as well as by the culture in which that individual acts. When knowledge is communicated to another, it becomes, from the communicator’s perspective, information—in other words ‘communicated knowledge’. For the recipient of the information, knowledge is, in turn, ‘interpreted information’ (Huotari, Hurme & Valkonen 2005, p. 39).
Conceptualization becomes a challenge when starting to define compounds such as ‘information use’ and ‘knowledge use’. Analytically, we may think that the (cognitive) use of acquired or received information starts when the information seeker begins to estimate the usefulness of the information sources found. Reading a newspaper article, for instance, could be understood as Buckland’s (1991) term ‘being informed’ (information-as-process) which in this case means interpreting the words and sentences in the article. Strictly speaking, however, the target of this interpretation process is information, not knowledge. Many researchers see that knowledge is created while the information is being interpreted, and hence, a process of interpretation such as this might also be understood as knowledge construction. If the reading of the article has changed the reader’s constructs, we can suppose that the reader has used the information offered by the source. The interpretations can also be utilized in other contexts (for example, in problemsolving or decision-making), so information use does not need to be a once-for-all event. Furthermore, information use and knowledge construction are not always conscious (Cole 1997, pp. 56–7). Sometimes, only a small subset of the acquired information may be selected for further processing and ever has a conscious impact.
One can only talk about ‘knowledge use’ when the interpreted information, that is, the constructed knowledge, is taken, consciously or unconsciously, as a point of departure when doing something mentally or physically, for instance, making conclusions. At such a time, knowledge is not always created by first getting new information as its material. Knowledge use can be manifested at any time after the process of interpretation in situations where the knowledge thus created can be harnessed to the needs of decision-making, for example, either once or repeatedly.
The latter view emphasizes a pragmatic perspective, according to which knowledge use manifests itself as knowing in practice (Orlikowski 2002; Savolainen 2009). Knowledge is not a separate entity, but rather an organic component of ongoing action (Lloyd 2007). When knowledge is embedded in action, the focus of examination shifts to the process of knowing, rather than knowledge as an explicitly individualizable factor. From the viewpoint of empirical research on knowledge use, this interpretation is challenging, for as knowing and action are inextricably intertwined, it is difficult to identify the phenomena that are peculiar to knowledge use.
It is rather astonishing that there has been so little research on information use vis à-vis knowledge use. Scholars often talk about ‘information use’, although they may actually mean knowledge use. This makes the prevailing conceptual confusion quite understandable. Our chapter does not aspire to analyze information or knowledge use in more detail; just pointing out the difference is probably sufficient for now. In order to keep this chapter from becoming too complex, we treat information use and knowledge use as one thing. Henceforth, ‘information use’ will be use to cover both information and knowledge use, and ‘knowledge use’ will be reserved for those occasions when only knowledge use is discussed.
Learning
Learning can be analyzed from many different points of view and there are indeed a large number of separate approaches to it. Learning theory approaches and models have earlier been surveyed by Nigel Ford (2004, pp. 185–6). Overall, theories of learning can be divided into three major schools: behaviourism, cognitivism, and constructivism. In the behaviourist tradition, learning has been approached through attention to the changes in the visible behaviour of organisms (animals and humans). Learning takes place when a stimulus elicits a specific response (Zuriff 1985).
Cognitivists criticize behaviourism for being too dependent on overt behaviour in explaining learning. From the perspective of cognitivism, the main attention should be directed at inner mental activities in order to understand how people learn. Mental processes such as thinking, memorizing, knowing and problem-solving are particularly important in this regard (Amsel 1989). From the cognitivist perspective, knowledge can be seen as schemata or symbolic mental constructions, and learning is defined as a change in the learner’s schemata. More specifically, learning takes place when information is received into the mind and then processed to make sense of it. Learning from new information is made possible by connecting it to existing knowledge and then storing it in one’s memory, so it can be retrieved later.
Recent decades have witnessed the ever-rising popularity of the constructivist learning conception, within which there are variations (Twomey 2005). Radical constructivism emphasizes learning as an individual process, whereas the socio- constructivist view of learning accentuates interaction as the starting point of learning. Common to the differing constructivist views, however, is the notion that learning is about the selection and interpretation of information and that it takes place through experiences. Learning is a process of building knowledge, which is based on making sense of acquired and received information in the context of a task (Kuhlthau 2004; Todd 2006). Understood this way, learning is a transformation process in which the new is built on the old. Knowledge, skills, values and attitudes transform with learning. Learning can also be perceived from the viewpoint of the results of this process. In this case, one can refer to adopting information (cognitive learning), the changing of feelings (affective learning), or the developing of physical functioning (psychomotor learning) (Novak 1998, p. 9).
Research design
To elaborate on the issues reviewed above, our study focuses on the following question: In what ways do scholarly publications, particularly information science publications, characterize the connections between information use and learning? To answer this question, a considerable number of studies, both conceptual and empirical, were examined by means of conceptual analysis. At the initial stage of the study, the major criterion applied in the selection of the research literature was simply the concept of information use. Major databases such as LISA (Library and Information Science Abstracts) and LISTA (Library, Information Science and Technology Abstracts) were searched to identify relevant literature by employing keywords like ‘information use’ and ‘knowledge use’. In addition, review articles on information needs, seeking and use published in the Annual Review of Information Science and Technology since 1966 were examined. In this way, about fifty studies providing explicit definitions or conceptualizations of information use could be identified.
After the initial reading, a considerable number of the studies identified were excluded, because they did not characterize the issues of learning in relation to information use sufficiently. It did not matter how the two terms were defined; the two terms, however, had to occur together. In the area of information retrieval research, for example, Pertti Vakkari and Nanna Hakala (2000) provide a useful approach to the study of relevance assessment at various stages of writing a research proposal (see also Vakkari and Pennanen 2001). The evaluation of the utility of references and documents is pertinent from the perspective of information use. However, the issues of learning remain implicit, since only general references are made to the (assumed) changes in the mental models of students writing research proposals. The above studies were thus excluded from the analysis.
On the other hand, Louise Limberg’s 1997 and 1999 papers are examples of the studies that were included. She has got further than many others when analyzing information seeking and information use by upper secondary school students phenomenographically.1 Issues of information use and learning are explicitly discussed in connection with one another, so her publications met our selection criteria.
As a result of the selective approach, a dozen studies were put under closer scrutiny by means of conceptual analysis. The majority of the publications were empirical. First, the texts chosen for analysis were subjected to open coding to identify the main categories. When the pertinent passages in the data had been located, each expression of a relationship between information use and learning was carefully examined and classified. For instance, Hilary Hughes’ (2006b) sentence ‘The model (Hughes et al. 2006) shown in Figure 1 highlights the synergy between information use and learning and offers a framework for developing a reflective approach to online information use’ was interpreted, because of the use of the word ‘synergy’, as referring to interaction between information use and learning. An independent category was formed whenever the relationship was clearly identifiable and distinct from the other relationships. The categories were named according to the data they contained (Lincoln & Guba 1985, pp. 339–43).
Second, the data were analyzed by constantly comparing the articulations of information use and learning within the above categories (Lincoln & Guba 1985, pp. 339–44). Thus, typical of the inductive research approach, an attempt was made to characterize the variation of meanings attached to the research subject. When information use was presented as a part of learning, for example, we tried to tease out the different ways in which information use can be a part of learning. Therefore, the meanings of information use and learning were not predefined, because the present study is not interested in a quantitative picture of these phenomena. The main attention was paid to the ways in which the relationships between information use and learning are characterized in the research literature. The identification of the types of connections such as these is the main contribution of the present study.
Information use and learning
From the pertinent research publications, five main relationship categories were identified:
1. learning is a part of information use;
2. information use is a part of learning;
3. learning affects information use;
The examination proceeds from the most simple connections towards more complex ones.
Learning is a part of information use
By appealing to holism, Hughes (2006b) in actual fact proposes that information use, as a many-sided experience, covers the behaviour of the individual, connecting (to an information source), information seeking, information skills, exploitation of information, information literacy, information needs, context, reactions and effects, as well as results (of learning). Skills naturally require learning, but Hughes does not justify why information use should be understood as broadly as that. Rather, the list reflects information practices in general.
Could learning still be a part of information use? Yes, at least in the sense that the person can learn to be a more skilful information user (McGregor &Williamson 2005, pp. 508 & 510). Clarence Maybee, in a study in which eighteen students were interviewed, finds that ‘self-reflection as well as exposure to other students’ experiences appeared to expand the way some students understood and approached information use’ (Maybee 2007, p. 461). The college where the research was done has been developing pedagogical instruments that would foster the students’ comprehension of the various ways of using information and the selection of the method most suitable for the task at hand. In connection with this, Hughes writes about an imbalance which is manifested in the information literacy of university students around the world: they master information technology, but there is room for developing the critical importance of information use. This is a learning challenge (Hughes 2006a, 2006b).
Even investigators who scrutinize information use can leam something: ‘The primary benefit of conducting this research project was learning more about …how [students] understand and experience using information’ (Maybee 2007, p. 461). Another question relates to whether and how this learning is communicated onwards. None of the sources examined mentions teachers or educators learning to use information. One would imagine that they need to consciously master information use; otherwise, they could not instruct students in that skill.
Information use is a part of learning
Jennifer Rowley (2001) has developed a model by the name ‘The Learning with Knowledge Cycle’ which posits information and knowledge use as one of the six processes comprising organizational learning. Rowley states (2001, p. 234): ‘Knowledge may be used as the basis for developing new knowledge through integration, creation, innovation and extension of existing knowledge and/or it may be used as the basis for actions or decisions’. From this standpoint, learning seems to refer to the development of new knowledge and in this one’s ‘old’ knowledge can be used in various ways.
In a few other models which treat the use of networked resources, the information user is seen primarily as a learner (Hughes 2006b). Even though information seeking and use can be conceptualized as a process in its own right, from the pedagogic point of view, it is usually contextualized in the performance of a certain learning task, for example, in drawing up a term paper. As an analogy, one could say that, in the same way as information use can be a part of problem-solving, it can be a part of learning. Hughes (2006b) analyzes, in the context of learning, the use of networked information with a cyclical model, the components of which are planning, acting, recording and reflecting. Of these, the clearest reference to information use is reflecting, which is connected to the criticism of information and to the building of knowledge. A weakness of ‘part lists’ of this kind is that they do not explicitly define the role of information use in learning.
Learning affects information use
It follows from learning, according to Maybee (2006, p. 84), that students are able to use information deeply and comprehensively. This is exemplified by Ethelene Whitmire’s (2003) study, discussed further below, on the basis of which one can claim that learning may indeed promote information use. She studied how the epistemological beliefs of university students are connected to their ways of information seeking and use. Epistemological beliefs refer to the ideas of how it is possible to get information about a subject and how valid that information is.
Epistemological beliefs change with age and education, so that a belief about which information received from, for example, a teacher or other party who is accepted as an informational authority is certain or even absolute is characteristic of the first stage of development. As one develops, epistemological beliefs change, so that only a part of that information will be seen as undisputable or sure. At a later stage, the possibility that information is uncertain and that the individual can create his or her own interpretations of matters is accepted. At the most advanced stage, the credibility of information is weighed on the basis of context-bound evidence. These levels of development in epistemological beliefs correspond to the expressions ‘pre-reflective’, ‘quasi-reflective’ and ‘reflective’ thinking (Whitmire 2003, p. 131). This typology concerning the sophistication of thinking (that is, the level of one’s learning in this respect) is founded on the model developed by Patricia King and Karen Kitchener (1994) in which the features of reflective judgment are characterized.
Twenty students participated in Whitmire’s study. They were interviewed and questioned about the various stages of their information seeking in the process of developing an essay. Special attention was paid to questions that probed epistemological beliefs: ‘How did you decide which sources were good for your senior essay?’; ‘What criteria did you use for choosing sources?’; and ‘If you came across sources you disagreed with, or two sources that contradicted each other, how did you handle that?’ (Whitmire 2003, p. 132). Using their answers, it was possible to classify the students into three groups indicating the development of their epistemological beliefs: medium-low level, medium-high level, and high level.
It was easier for the students with more advanced epistemological beliefs (at the high or medium-high level) to weigh the contribution of contradictory sources. They did not reject these because, for example, of the fact that finding new viewpoints would have required specifying the essay and elaborating on the interpretations presented in it. It was also easier for these students than for others to identify authoritative sources (such as journals) on the subject matter and to use them in their work. They were also able to estimate better than the others bias, such as political emphases, in the sources. To the students with less advanced epistemological beliefs (at the medium-low level), the sources presented more difficulties. In the choice of sources that offered conflicting information, the extent to which a source supported the student’s earlier conceptions was stressed; sources representing opposing views were easily rejected. More readily than others, these students turned to informational authorities, teachers and others, and asked them for advice in order to find out whether a source that offers conflicting information can be used in the compilation of their essay.
Closer than an effect relation is the intentional linking of information use with learning, for instance, so that learning aims at information use. Indeed, school librarians ‘work in collaboration with teachers to integrate into the curriculum appropriate learning experiences that promote students’ ability to find and use information’ (McGregor & Williamson 2005, p. 498). Cole (1997, p. 72) emphasizes that to construct meaning is most central in information use, but, on the other hand, it is the objective of the processes of both information seeking and learning. Interpretation starts especially when one runs into informational materials (for example, ideas) that are not already familiar or redundant. Familiar material agrees with what is already known, but unique (non-redundant) material requires interpreting, so that the information seeker can adapt it to his or her knowledge constructions (Kuhlthau 1993, pp. 249–50).
Information use affects learning
Research strongly suggests that information use influences learning, whether this comes about by learning while using information, learning through information utilization (McGregor & Williamson 2005, pp. 500, 502), or some other ‘mechanism’. In the opinion of Hughes (2006a, p. 149), critical and creative information use improves the learning results of the human being.
This supposition receives support at least from Limberg’s phenomenographic study (Limberg 1999), in which the way that information is used for the purposes of learning was examined. In 1993–94, twenty-five upper secondary school students were interviewed. Their learning assignment was to find out what would be the positive or negative consequences for Sweden if it joined the European Union. The learning task was carried out as teamwork and its objective was to draw up a paper about twenty pages long within four months. The students were interviewed three times at different stages of their project. In the analysis of the interview material, special attention was paid to the ways in which the students had sought and used information for their paper. From the point of view of information use, the most interesting question was about how the utilization of the acquired material was perceived. Experiences of information use were explored by asking, among other things, what information they considered as especially useful and by what grounds.
By comparing the similarities and differences in the answers to those questions, Limberg identified five aspects on the basis of which she was able to develop categories that describe the students’ information seeking and information use. These aspects (or ‘categories of aspects’) were the students’ notions of relevance criteria, of information overload, of one-sided information sources, of cognitive authority, and of when sufficient information has been obtained (Limberg 1999, p. 119). By comparing these categories, it was possible to create a more general model describing the experiences of information seeking and use, which consists of three core categories (Limberg 1999, pp. 121–2).
From the perspective of the ‘looking for facts’ category, information use was experienced as the seeking of fact-based or ‘right’ answers to various questions. Concerning the relevance criteria, for example, easy access to unambiguous facts was emphasized. Formal points, such as the status of expert sources (for example, someone in a high position in public administration), were considered as the criterion for sufficient information. Sources that offered conflicting information were experienced as confusing, because one was not able to get unambiguous facts from them.
The category, ‘balances different views’, emphasizes the acquisition of sufficient information from different sources to form a personal view. Also in this category, the authority of an information source was mainly weighed on the basis of formal criteria (for example, a person’s status). The evaluation of sources that offer conflicting information was regarded as a difficult task.
From the angle of the third category, ‘detailed evaluation and analysis’, information use presented itself as an aspiration to understand the examined subject more deeply. When the relevance, authority and discrepancy of the information were estimated, it was deemed important to measure the information source against other sources and to critically weigh the contents of the information.
Limberg (1999, pp. 123–5) also examined ideas concerning the learning process and the learning results. It was a question of the extent to which the students’ ways of understanding the advantages and shortcomings of the European Union changed during the learning assignment. The learning results were significantly affected by how much the students knew about European Union matters beforehand. It was possible to identify three categories also for the learning process and learning results. Apart from a couple of exceptions, they corresponded to the categories of information use presented above and indicated variation in the depth of learning.
In learning, the information use category ‘looking for facts’ corresponded to the students’ experience of not being able to perceive the consequences concerning European Union membership because of a lack of facts and because their conceptions on the European Union remained fragmentary and their learning results relatively weak. The information use category ‘balances different views’ was reflected in learning results so that their views concerning a certain aspect (for example, economic cooperation) were clarified when it was possible to form a personal point of view. The notions concerning European Union integration as a whole remained indefinite, however, even though the learning results were a little better than in the case of the ‘looking for facts’ category. The best learning results were achieved when detailed evaluation and analysis were emphasized in their information use. The learning was based on the critical comparison of different viewpoints on European Union integration and on getting a deeper understanding of this subject.
When characterizing the ways of information use and learning, Limberg (1999, p. 128–9) uses the expression ‘surface or atomistic approach’ when referring to the category that emphasizes looking for facts, whereas the perspective of detailed evaluation and analysis represents a ‘deep or holistic approach’. The category that balances different views is placed in the middle ground between the other two approaches. Limberg’s results suggest that, on the one hand, students’ conceptions of the matters examined have an effect on their ways of information seeking and use, but that, on the other hand, these affect their ways of learning.
Maybee thinks that when the ways in which students understand information use are known, teachers are better equipped to deal with their learning needs and are able to offer information literacy education that has been specifically designed to support students’ learning. On the other hand, their learning can also be improved by promoting a change in their conceptions of information use. This change means that the learners are guided to conceptualize information use in more than one way. The different ways could then be applied to different information needs (Maybee 2006, 2007). This approach sounds reasonable.
Elsewhere, Hughes (2006b) defines information use broadly as an experience of engagement with information that serves learning. She also presents a complex model of using networked information for learning. According to her model, behavioural, cognitive, affective, cultural and linguistic factors variably affect the information use that serves learning, depending on the situation. The model brings out the need to take these factors into account in the learning and teaching of information literacy. In turn, the connection between information literacy and learning is widely acknowledged. In academic education, this supports a trend towards learning modes that require, among other things, critical, ethical and creative information use.
Information use and learning interact
Finally, information use can be considered to interact with learning. Hughes (2006b) expresses this relation in such a way that there is synergy between information use and learning. Apparently, information use and learning function better in reaching an objective together rather than separately. Limberg states that information use and learning are intertwined (1999, p. 125), and emphasizes that the learning process, learning results, and information use take shape in interaction (1997, p. 276). What this interaction is like remains unclear, however, as she does not proceed further in her examination 2. This comment probably embodies more generally limits into which one runs when analyzing the connections between information use and learning by means of phenomenography.
Rowley’s article offers some clarification on the interplay issue in the context of organizations. She proposes that on the one hand, knowledge uses justify organizational learning, and on the other hand, they ‘form a basis for measuring the effectiveness of the organisational learning process’ (Rowley 2001, pp. 234–5). Evidently, the former statement refers to an influence of knowledge use on learning, and the latter statement views knowledge use as a concrete outcome of learning. These two directions then constitute interaction. Information or knowledge use may thus play an important role in organizational learning. This is an area which, as yet, apparently lacks research.
Discussion
In the context of learning, the question that is central to understanding information use relates to how the received and interpreted information changes the individual’s notions: what is ‘done’ with the information in this context, and how does this ‘doing’ take place? With this question, we arrive at fundamental problems concerning the character of cognitive processes. These focus on questions about what thinking, inferring and realizing, forming metaphors and analogies, analyzing and synthesizing informational ingredients, constructing meanings, experiencing and experiences mean, and what the relationship of these processes is to information use. As our inquiry demonstrates, the pondering of these questions has only started and information researchers have not been able to provide very organized answers. Abstractly examined, it would seem that mental information use is mostly about establishing the proper relationships among images or ideas concerning a matter. Such information use is ultimately based on comparing the similarities and differences between matters and phenomena, and thus on the alternation of analysis and synthesis.
Studies that have been conducted from different conceptual and methodological points of view have raised observations which are obviously central in understanding information use in connection with the learning process. For example, Ross Todd’s studies point in the direction of information use being manifested in the specifying of conceptions concerning problematic matters so that a clearer and deeper picture of the matters is obtained. Also Carol Kuhlthau’s research results suggest that the (mental) processes of information use are connected with the clearing up and specifying of ideas, and that information use is a process of constructing meanings and creating understanding. This is probably also the objective of learning, at least if the assumptions of constructivism are adopted as the starting point. It is imaginable, however, that information use could sometimes lead to a conception becoming unclear (Saukkonen 2008, p. 295). Therefore, information use is not without problems of its own, nor can information use itself be identified with its consequences.
The writing of this chapter was complicated by the fact that the concepts of information use and learning often lack an exact or explicit definition in the literature. Hence, it can be difficult even to distinguish between them when the terms seem to be overlapping. The overlap is particularly evident in the area of knowledge construction. On the one hand, knowledge construction is the (creative) interpretation of acquired or received information; on the other hand, it may be understood as a central constituent of learning, because knowledge construction deals with making sense of acquired information. In spite of the lack of conceptual definition and clarity, it was possible to perceive connections between information use and learning, at least at some level. According to our interpretation, they have been presented in five different ways, as proposed above and repeated here:
1. learning is a part of information use;
2. information use is a part of learning;
3. learning affects information use;
It is difficult to say which of the aforementioned conceptual relationships are ‘correct’ or ‘best’. Some of the heterogeneity is undoubtedly caused by variation in the scholars’ notions of what information use and learning are, as real-world processes. For example, someone may see learning as affecting information use and another person may identify information use as a part of learning, just because they understand information use differently. Still, all five connections make at least some sense, because they offer differing points of view from which to consider information use and learning. They also reflect the fact that learning and information use are not separate processes (in any sense other than the analytical) and can even be important to each other. As a matter of course, these two processes can manifest themselves alone, too—not all information use involves learning and not all learning involves information use.
This chapter has deliberated on how the relationship between an information phenomenon (information use) and its context (learning) has been perceived in the sphere of information research. The connections perceived by us and presented here resemble another division in an empirical study in which four generic relations were found between Internet searching and the objectives of self-development (Kari & Savolainen 2007, p. 64): detachment, unity, direction and interaction. In the data that is the basis of our study, there was no equivalent to detachment—excepting the excluded literature in which learning and information use were not considered together. The ‘part’ relationships (1 and 2 in the above list) are instances of unity, whereas the effect relationships (3 and 4) are instances of direction. Lastly, the two interaction relationships (5 and that established by Kari and Savolainen) are about the same. Even though this study does not provide as rich a picture of the connections as the earlier study, our analysis does provide support for the claim that there is something universal about the relationships among information phenomena and their contexts. This is likely to help us in understanding all of them.
Research that aims to explain the connections between information use and learning is only taking its first steps. On the basis of Limberg’s studies, learning style would seem to explain the ways in which information use serves the learning process. Personality features can also be considered as explanatory factors. However, the study of cause-and-effect relations between learning and information use is complicated by the fact that these processes are intertwined and appear as an interactive whole.
A central factor that has greatly restricted investigating the connections between information use and learning has been its one-sided contextualization in studying educational institutions. Of course, a large part of learning takes place when matters are purposely studied, but a lot of learning also takes place outside studying—in work and leisure. Here, we refer to the perspective of lifelong learning. Another restricting factor has been that information use and learning have been treated almost exclusively from the cognitive perspective. This finding cannot be an artefact resulting from our definitions of information use and learning, because only the terms (not particular conceptualizations) were used to choose the literature to be analyzed. Thus, the research in this area really appears to lack more sophisticated approaches to learning and information use. It is desirable that the affective, physical and social facets should also be taken into consideration (as, for example, Kari (2007) does) in future. Such ‘corrective actions’ would make research on the connections between information use and learning a more extensive and significant enterprise.
Conclusion
In the study of information use and learning, the common efforts of information studies, pedagogics and psychology are needed. For joint projects, educational informatics (Ford 2004), for example, could offer a starting point. This research area would comprise the examination of information seeking, information use and information sharing, as they serve learning, so that the examination would concentrate on the processes of choosing and using information sources and information of different types. There are many interesting research subjects opening up in this area, if information use is examined more deeply in relation to cognitive–affective factors, for example, motivation, self-efficacy, or different cognitive styles. Todd’s (2006) study, which analyzed how the contents, structure and amount of knowledge possessed by students in the upper secondary school and the upper level of the comprehensive school change, offers an interesting instance of a project of this kind.
It is also possible to focus research on more clearly delimited questions of information use and learning, for example on the problems of plagiarism (for example, Williamson & McGregor 2006). On the other hand, almost all studies in the general area of information use and learning have looked at the phenomena from the individual’s angle. We need to balance this with an organizational approach by looking at the phenomena from the perspective of groups, organizations and communities. The germ of such a line of research has already been provided by Rowley (2001).
One final question remains: What does the above discussion on information use and learning processes imply for information literacy, or more specifically, practising information literacy? Tackling this issue is difficult, because the concepts of practice, information practice and information literacy are subject to multiple definitions (Limberg, Sundin & Talja 2009; Savolainen 2008, pp. 15–35; Tuominen, Savolainen & Talja 2005). We have seen above that information use and learning, and also their interrelationships, can be understood in many ways. Naturally, the setting becomes even more complicated when information use and learning are put into proportion with information literacy. In fact, as the present book demonstrates, researchers have just started to scrutinize these conceptual issues in greater depth.
From our viewpoint, practising information literacy may be understood as socioculturally formed ways in which people apply their skills of seeking, using, organizing and sharing information to carry out goal-related activities, such as performing work tasks or pursuing leisure interests. Information use and learning are among the main constitutive activities of this practice, because the development of competencies necessarily draws on these activities.
In order to elaborate on the picture of the relationships between information use, learning, and information literacy practice, further studies, both conceptual and empirical, need to be conducted. For example, they could scrutinize how people’s abilities to use information contribute to the execution of goal-related activities that are constitutive of work practices of diverse kinds. There is also a need to investigate how one’s abilities to seek, use, share and organize information contribute to learning in various communities of practice. In this way, step by step, we may create a truly contextual picture of practising information literacy.
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank the anonymous referees, our departmental Research Group on Information Seeking (REGIS), as well as Pertti Vakkari, Sanna Talja and Annemaree Lloyd for their thoughtful comments.
References
Amsel, A. Behaviorism, neobehaviorism, and cognilivism in learning theory: Historical and contemporary perspectives. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum; 1989.
Association of College, Research Libraries (ACRL), Information literacy competency standards for higher education Chicago, 111., viewed 5 October 2009,, 2000. http://www.ala.org/ala/mgrps/divs/acrl/standards/informationliteracycompeten cy.cfm
Bates, M.J. Fundamental forms of information. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 2005; 57(8):1033–1045.
Bruce, C. The seven faces of information literacy. Adelaide, SA: Auslib Press; 1997.
Buckland, M. Information and information systems. New York: Greenwood Press; 1991.
Case, D.O. Looking for information: A survey of research on information seeking, needs and behavior, 2nd ed. San Diego, CA: Academic Press; 2007.
Cole, C. Information as process: The difference between corroborating evidence and “information” in humanistic research domains. Information Processing & Management. 1997; 33(1):55–67.
Ford, N. Towards a model of learning for educational informatics. Journal of Documentation. 2004; 60(2):183–225.
Hughes, H., Fostering a reflective approach to online information use for learningOrr D., Nouwens F., Macpherson C., Harreveld R.E., Danaher P.A., eds. Proceedings of the 4th International Lifelong Learning Conference. Lifelong learning: Partners, pathways, and pedagogies. Central Queensland University Press, Rockhampton, 2006:143–150.
Hughes, H., Responses and influences: A model of online information use for learning no. 1, viewed 30 October 2009,. Information Research; vol. 12, 2006. http://informationr.net/ir/12-1/paper279.html
Huotari, M.-L., Hurme, P., Valkonen, T. Viestinnästä tietoon: Tiedon luominen työyhteisössä [From communication to knowledge: Knowledge creation in a work community]. Helsinki: WSOY; 2005.
Ingwersen, P., Järvelin, K. The turn: Integration of information seeking and retrieval in context. Dordrecht: Springer; 2005.
Kari, J., Conceptualizing the personal outcomes of information no. 2, viewed 30 October 2009,. Information Research; vol. 12, 2007. http://informationr.net/ir/12-2/paper292.html
Kari, J., Savolainen, R. Relationships between information seeking and context: A qualitative study of Internet searching and the goals of personal development. Library & Information Science Research. 2007; 29(1):47–69.
King, P.M., Kitchener, K.S. Developing reflective judgment: Understanding and promoting intellectual growth and critical thinking in adolescents and adults. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass; 1994.
Kuhlthau, C.C. A principle of uncertainty for information seeking. Journal of Documentation. 1993; 49(4):339–355.
Kuhlthau, C.C. Seeking meaning: A process approach to library and information services, 2nd ed. Norwood, NJ: Ablex; 2004.
Limberg, L. Information use for learning purposes. In: Vakkari P., Savolainen R., Dervin B., eds. Information seeking in context: Proceedings of an international conference on research in information needs, seeking and use in different contexts. London: Taylor Graham; 1997:275–289.
Limberg, L. Three conceptions of information seeking and use. In: Wilson T.D., Allen D.K., eds. Exploring the contexts of information behaviour: Proceedings of the second international conference on research in information needs, seeking and use in different contexts. London: Taylor Graham; 1999:116–135.
Limberg, L., Sundin, O., Talja, S. Teoretiska perspektiv på informationskompetens [Theoretical perspectives on information literacy]. In: Hedman J., Sundh A., eds. Informationskompetenser: Om lärande i informationspraktiker och informationssökning i lärandepraktiker [Information literacies: On information practices and information seeking in the context of learning practices]. Stockholm: Carlssons; 2009:33–62.
Lincoln, Y.S., Guba, E.G. Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage; 1985.
Lloyd, A. Learning to put the red stuff: Becoming information literate through discursive practice. Library Quarterly. 2007; 77(2):181–192.
Lupton, M. The learning connection: Information literacy and the student experience. Adelaide, SA: Auslib Press; 2004.
Marton, F. Phenomenography: Describing conceptions of the world around us. Instructional Science. 1981; 10:177–200.
Maybee, C. Undergraduate perceptions of information use: The basis for creating user-centered student information literacy instruction. Journal of Academic Librarianship. 2006; 32(1):79–85.
Maybee, C. Understanding our student learners: A phenomenographic study revealing the ways that undergraduate women at Mills College understand using information. Reference Services Review. 2007; 35(3):452–462.
McGregor, J.H., Williamson, K. Appropriate use of information at the secondary school level: Understanding and avoiding plagiarism. Library & Information Science Research. 2005; 27:496–512.
Novak, J.D. Learning, creating, and using knowledge: Concept maps as facilitative tools in schools and corporations. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum; 1998.
Orlikowski, W.J. Knowing in practice: Enacting a collective capability in distributed organization. Organization Science. 2002; 13(3):249–273.
Rowley, J. Knowledge management in pursuit of learning: The Learning with Knowledge Cycle. Journal of Information Science. 2001; 27(4):227–237.
Saukkonen, S. ‘Kirja-arviointeja [Book reviews]’ [review of E Sormunen & E Poikela (eds) 2008, Informaatio, informaatiolukutaito ja oppiminen [Information, information literacy, and learning], Tampere University Press, Tampere]. Kasvatus [Education]. 2008; 39(3):295–296.
Savolainen, R. Everyday information practices: A social phenomenological perspective. Lanham MD: Scarecrow Press; 2008.
Savolainen, R., Epistemic work and knowing in practice as conceptualizations of information use no. 1, viewed 30 October 2009,. Information Research; vol. 14, 2009. http://informationr.net/ir/14-l/paper392.html
Savolainen, R., Kari, J. Tiedonkäytön ja oppimisprosessin yhteyksistä – informaatiotutkimuksen näkökulma [On the connections between information use and learning process – the perspective of information studies]. In: Sormunen E., Poikela E., eds. Informaatio, informaatiolukutaito ja oppiminen [Information, information literacy, and learning]. Tampere: Tampere University Press; 2008:33–55.
Todd, R.J. Utilization of heroin information by adolescent girls in Australia: A cognitive analysis. no. l,pp. Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 1999; vol. 50:10–23.
Todd, R.J., ‘From information to knowledge: Charting and measuring changes in students’ knowledge of a curriculum topic’. Information Research; vol. 11, 2006. no. 4, viewed 30 October 2009,. http://informationr.net/ir/11-4/paper264.html
Tuominen, K., Savolainen, R., Talja, S. Information literacy as sociotechnical practice. Library Quarterly. 2005; 75(3):329–345.
Twomey C.T., ed. Constructivism: Theory, perspectives, and practice. New York: Teachers College Press, 2005.
Vakkari, P., Hakala, N. Changes in relevance criteria and problem stages in task performance. Journal of Documentation. 2000; 56(5):540–562.
Vakkari, P., Pennanen, M. ‘Sources. relevance and contributory information of documents in writing a research proposal: A longitudinal case study’, The New Review of Information Behaviour Research. 2001; 2:217–232.
Whitmire, E. Epistemological beliefs and information-seeking behavior of undergraduates. Library & Information Science Research. 2003; 25(2):127–142.
Williamson, K., McGregor, J.H., Information use and secondary school students: A model for understanding plagiarism no. Information Research; vol. 12, 2006. viewed 30 October 2009,. http://informationr.net/ir/12-l/
Zuriff, G.E. Behaviorism: A conceptual reconstruction. New York: Columbia University Press; 1985.
1Developed by Fercnc Marton (1981), phenomenography is a qualitative methodology that can be used to describe variation in the human experience.
2One of our referees appeared to have an intimate knowledge of Limbcrg’s research and pointed out that the interaction between information use and learning ‘varies from case to case’, which is why Limberg left it unspecified.