Information
literacy? Seeking clarification
First published School
libraries worldwide. 4(1) 1998: 59-72
Republished and adapted
The
information literate school community: best practice. Henri & Bonanno
(eds.) Wagga wagga: CIS, Charles Sturt University 1999 pp 43-54
E-journal FromNowOn
http://fno.org October 1998.
This paper begins with
a brief overview of the concept of literacy. It then focuses upon a series
of definitions that deal with an expanding notion of literacies and finally
refocusses on information literacy.
Introduction
Information literacy! One should be forgiven if one becomes confused when
confronted with educational writing and discussion on information literacy.
Research in the area of information literacy is plentiful if one accepts
the multiplicity of terms that could define this phrase. However, one could
just as easily come through the research and still be asking, ‘What is
it I am trying to understand, let alone teach?’ A plethora of writing and
lectures about conceptualising, developing, and implementing information
literacy fills whole conferences, and whole books and, indeed, adds significantly
to the information traffic on the Internet. Yet it is apparent that, like
the elephant in the Indian parable about the blind men, information literacy
is defined differently by various schools of thought.
From where did this term emanate to occupy so much discussion? Is it a
transfiguration, a concept that is age-old but given new clothes to fit
in with the educational speak of the Information Age? Is information literacy
merely an embellished view of the traditional understanding of literacy?
Or has it become a full transformation of an educational tenet in
the light of evolving understandings
in learning theory?
Is it a concept or a process? Is it an embodiment of essential skills that
have only had name changes over the decades? Or is it a new literacy that
has been transformed from existing literacies to complement the emerging
technologies for which the Information Age students must be skilled?
Why have not the understandings and skills that inform information literacy
become embedded into the classroom practices of teachers and educational
systems? Is it because information literacy is understood as something
that is teacher librarian oriented and not part of the general curriculum?
There is a growing body of literature on information literacy in its own
right and as a pedagogical twinning to other educational topics such as
preservice teachers (Candy, Crebert, & O’Leary 1994; Bruce 1996; Dow
& Geer 1996; Wright & McGurk 1996), the information literate school
community (Henri 1988; Cooper & Henderson 1994), independent learners
(Stephenson 1995; Mayer 1996), and information technology (Johnson &
Eisenberg 1991; Eisenberg & Johnson 1996; Mitchell 1996; Mobley 1996).
The tying of information literacy
as a concept to such educational
issues should alert all stakeholders in the education arena
that a shift in educational
thinking has occurred in that literacy is more than the ability to read
and to write. It may also imply that information literacy is firmly embedded
in the practices and outcomes of education in the Information Age. If this
is so, then, intuitively, the concept of information literacy should be
part of the natural discourse of teachers as they design and develop curriculum
units or discuss pedagogical issues. However it would seem that information
literacy is capricious, defying a universal definition, and acceptance,
of a place
in the essential learning
areas of compulsory education. Perhaps its nature is more consequential,
transforming as educational processes shift to acknowledge and incorporate
emerging technologies? Holloway (1996:32-35) would agree with Lincoln (1987:6)
and Henri (1995) in that the label (information literacy? information skills?
study skills?) is fuzzy and
that the teachers are not
clear about what is meant by this term or how it relates to classroom practice.
Holloway argues that the product, information literacy, is positive but
that the process is unclear, which could result, at worst, in its being
dismissed as a transitory trend in education. One could justifiably argue
that the product is also unclear as evidenced by the variations (no matter
how slight) in information literacy outcomes (Eisenberg & Berkowitz
1990; Mayer 1992; Behrens 1994; Candy, Crebert & O’Leary 1994; Doyle
1994; Bruce 1995; Owens 1996).
Whatever information literacy reveals itself as, the literature is replete
with a sense of
urgency that essential
learning areas include outcomes that ensure that all learners (be they
in a workplace or in an
educational institution) become information literate.
Information literacy
in the education arena
If one of the main aims for students is to gain control over the vast amount
of information
in its myriad forms and
registers, then so too must we, as professionals in the information game,
become literate in the field of information. Yet another term, information
literacy, is thrown into the sea of educational change, along with critical
literacy, or functional literacy or even environmental literacy. The list
goes on! In secondary schools, teaching often becomes subject based, and
changing approaches to teaching and learning tend to be taken up within
specific disciplines. There is also an understanding that schools must
develop literate and numerate students, emphasising the importance of reading
and writing skills at a functional level. Therefore, domains of teaching
are unwittingly set up and when new ideas percolate through, they are often
sectoralised. For example, the literature abounds with the idea that teacher
librarians are significant stakeholders, and sometimes infers the teacher
librarian as sole stakeholder, in the development of information literacy
in students. On the other hand, schools of thought discuss whole language
approaches to education, and integrated teaching
of skills (information
skills) towards lifelong learning. Are we, as teacher librarians, responsible
for some distinct concept referred to as information literacy or are we
a part of a whole, promoting literacy through the development and encouragement
of an array of skills which include information and thinking?
Literacy: a short history
John F. Kennedy’s (in Vickers 1988) avows that ‘the one unchangeable certainty
is that nothing is certain or unchangeable.’ If we concur that literacy
is central to education, and therefore a certainty, then we must also accept
that literacy, as a concept, is changeable.
Historically,
literacy was interpreted as a basic ability to read and write and comprehend.
The arrival of print technology, centuries past, heralded the need for
skills in reading, writing, and comprehension. Unfortunately, as information
was perceived as knowledge and knowledge was power, an elite group developed,
a literati of society! However as society’s needs evolved, literacy became
a universal right. The world view endorsed UNESCO’s 1950s interpretation
of literacy as being the ability required to use print to function in everyday
life (Harris & Hodges 199?: 142), and in 1959, The United Nation’s
Declaration on the Rights of the Child: Principle 7, in part, declared
that ‘the child is entitled to receive education which shall be free and
compulsory, at least in the elementary stages’ Consequently, school curriculum
concerned itself essentially with developing literate and numerate clients.
Breivik (in Booker 1993: 26) reminds us that at one stage in human endeavour,
‘if you could just write your name you were considered literate.’ Certainly
there is no doubt that literacy, in the first instance, defined the process
skills of reading and writing, a signature (Kaplan 1995) or alphabetic
(Diepenbrock 1997) literacy!
Transformation of literacy
The needs of society at any point in time determine how a society interprets
a concept. Breivik and Gee (1989: 22) affirm that just as the ‘social and
individual purposes that literacy serves have broadened’ so has the scope
widened ‘from the religious and scholarly elite to include the whole population.’
They confirm this ideal through their reasoned belief that literacy is
in an evolving state which ‘mirrors the expanding information needs of
society.’ Thus, by extension, literacy has become a dynamic concept.
Carol Collier Kuhlthau (1995) in her paper
The process of learning from
information supports Brevik and Gee. She reminds us that, even as late
as the 1970s, the library media program was well recognised as reading
incentive programs and library skills, that is, how to use the library
through the concepts and principles of bibliographic instruction (Doiron
1992: 9-16; Lenox & Walker 1994: 61). Through her concern for her students’
unease with research, she challenged the rather pragmatic interpretation
of literacy by introducing the importance of attitudinal behaviours towards
information seeking. She affirmed that to be literate was to not only recognise
when information was required but involved the ability to construct one’s
own knowledge through a process that gave meaning and self-interest to
the notion of learning throughout a lifetime.
This idea that literacy is connected with expressing the thoughts and attitudes
of people is reflected in Ross and Bailey’s (1994: 32) understanding of
literacy as literacies. They defined four eras of literacy and referred
to the third era as bibliographic, that is, the era that was heralded by
Gutenberg’s technology, through to a world consciousness that endorsed
the basic human right to read and write, or as Ross and Bailey (ibid) state
‘to code and decode symbols....to translate symbols into meaningful messages.’
Candy (1993: 281) strengthens Ross and Bailey’s notion of eras of literacy.
He supports Breivik and Gee’s assertion when he argues that the definition
of literacy 150 years ago and even fifteen years ago will not be satisfactory
any more: the concept of literacy really depends on the information needs
of the society of the time. Indeed, the International Literacy Year
ended
with a policy paper (1990) which defined literacy as a functional literacy.
Functional literacy was revealed to be the ability to read and use written
information, to write appropriately in a range of contexts, and to recognise
numbers and basic mathematical signs and symbols, demonstrating support
for the age-old definition that informed school curriculum. However, this
same policy statement widened the accepted view to include in the definition
the integration of speaking, listening and critical thinking (skills) within
reading and writing and to state that literacy develops throughout a person’s
lifetime. The world view of literacy broadened to accept that literacy
was evolving; that there was a continuum of skills associated with literacy;
and that literacy itself was taking on differing forms, in fact transforming,
from a functional literacy through to a set of literacies, tied to advances
in technological society.
Literacy or literacies
For a learner or a teacher, this defining and redefining of the concept
of literacy could
result in a state of confusion
or frustration or scholarly indifference. The literature reveals statements
and discussions about emerging literacies such as technological, critical,
business, traditional, network, basic, scholarly, environmental, library,
electrographic, cultural, moral, e-literacies, digital, information and
even new basic literacy. It is easy to sympathise with Philip Candy (1993:
280) as he testily observes that we are being ‘bombarded by other concepts
of literacy: functional, visual, media, computer, political, information.’
On the other hand, scholars like Chloe Diepenbrock (1997) maintain that
literacy is an act of semiosis. Therefore, if literacy is merely an act
of semiosis, then every act that records symbols of human communication
outside of the human body is a type of literacy. Every act of communication
evolves around the encoding and decoding of information in its many and
changing forms and registers, be it textual, visual, gestural, social,
or digital. One could deduce from this that literacy is fuelled by information
and hence all literacy is information literacy! Diepenbrock develops this
notion of the changing concept of literacy, thereby giving support to Ross
and Bailey’s pluralisation of literacy, by stating that literacy once referred
to the act that was dominated by the chief technologies of literacy: that
is, the written word/symbol.
She refers to this as alphabetic
literacy or the ability to read, write and understand. She categorises
literacies according to an hierarchy which includes, not only those listed,
but literacies such as personal, multicultural, academic, ethical and electronic
(and this she further divides into two kinds!).
It is little wonder that Candy (1993: 280) asks the question ‘Is this simply
lexical inflation, or do all these terms betoken something new and important?’
In a similar vein to Candy, Cavalier (1993: 19) candidly criticises the
term literacy as an all purpose noun, ‘a hurrah word, which denotes that
the inherent is well-versed in the adjective attached.’ Breivik (1993:
26) deepens the argument by reflecting on the frustration felt by the American
Library Association Presidential Committee during her defence of the notion
of information literacy: ‘We are going to change the term, we hate this
term, it is no good. There are all these other literacies...’ She continues
by supporting the fact that the definition of literacy has changed over
the decades and that the Australian definition of literacy may, in fact,
be the best: to be able to function well in society. This entails the ability
to read, use numbers and to find information and use it appropriately.
Breivik (1993: 6-18; 26-7) strongly believes that literacy, as an Industrial
Age concept, has transformed to include affective as well as cognitive
understanding, within the culture of the Information Age.
More confusion occurs! Bill Wresch (1997) simply states that the ‘concept
of information literacy is relatively new’ while Henri (1992: 5) considered
information literacy as the ‘buzz concept in education’ throughout the
1980s. Todd (1996a) understands, from Lazarus and Lipper’s report on America’s
children and the information highway: a briefing book and national action
agenda, that information literacy has outlived its buzzword status
and is now part of the status quo. In a later paper, he affirms Wresch
by stating that information literacy is an emerging field of intellectual
inquiry (Todd 1996b)! Practitioners in professional dialogue on OZTL_NET
have referred to information literacy as a philosophy, a phenomenon, and
a mere frolic with semantics. Candy (1996: 141) sums up this confusion
when he states, ‘...there are several different and...incommensurable understandings
of information literacy...yet we use the same term in our communications
with one another.’
Despite some scholarly tilting, or lexical inflation, of the nomenclature
revolving around literacy, there is considerable support for viewing literacy
as a continuously evolving concept allowing for a more liberal understanding
and hence, development, of the initial ideal of the universal right to
be able to read and to write. Literacy depends on information. Information
is expanding at exponential rates. The mere ability to read and to write
is being translated into the ability to read, write, and to develop the
capacities to understand, absorb, assimilate, and digest the images being
transmitted electronically with the added capacity to communicate these
images electrographically (Ross and Bailey 1994: 32-3).
As figure 1( http://golum.riv.csu.edu.au/~llangfor/papers/infolitmap.gif
)
illustrates, the various hurrah words exploding within the information
literacy scene attest to the multifarious nature of literacy itself. The
question is begged. Just how is information literacy defined? In terms
of skills (Taylor 1979), behaviours or attitudes (Kuhlthau 1993; Doyle
1994; Bruce 1995)? Is information literacy about learning library or research
or study skills (Irving 1985; Kirk 1987) or perhaps learning to think critically
(McGregor 1995; Lenox & Walker 1994)? Is it process or content-oriented?
Pinned to a methodology such as resource-based learning or inquiry learning
or the Big Six (Gawith 1991; Eisenberg & Berkowitz 1995)? Does it relate
to an isolated subject such as social education or is it an isolated subject
in itself? Is it an independent notion? Is it an umbrella phrase
with many parts which, when meshed into a pedagogical framework, contributes
to the holistic development of an individual? Does it provide a pathway
for the individual to function well in society, to be empowered to learn
independently and interdependently (Owen 1996; Kuhlthau 1994)? Is
it a new literacy tied to changing technologies (Ross & Bailey 1994)
or is it still the basic literacy mirroring the expanding information needs
of society (Brevik 1994)? Judging by the variation in definitions, information
literacy appears to be defined depending on what part of the elephant one
is experiencing.
A working definition
This confusion reveals the complexity of this notion within educational
circles. Christina Doyle (in Booker 1996: 40), Professor of Technology
in Learning at Northern Arizona University, realised that the ideas and
practices of developing in her students an independence in defining and
solving their information problems could be drawn together under an umbrella
concept referred to as information literacy. Information literacy appears
to be a relational idea (Bruce 1997), and, according to Doyle (in Booker
1996:39-48), requires an educationally sound contextual base from which
educators can develop the understandings and skills within a framework
that has national acceptance and validation. Following on from her research,
Doyle developed a set of rubrics for information literacy. She integrated
the ALA’s (1989) analysis of the concept to define information literacy
as the ability to access, evaluate, and use information from a variety
of resources, to recognise when information is needed, and to know how
to learn.
If the benchmark for understanding information literacy is Doyle’s set
of rubrics (Appendix 1), then other definitions can be analysed in reference
to this standard. In the first instance, Doyle is careful to establish
that information literacy is a concept that has been shaped by academics,
business, and government. Certainly the Australian Federal Government (Finn/Mayer
Reports, 1992) was instrumental in developing a set of key competencies
expressed in educational outcomes, some of which parallel Doyle’s rubrics
in terms of information literacy. Doyle further develops the definition
of information literacy to acknowledge that inherent in this concept is
the attainment of skills which relies on a process; that is, information
literacy is an applied concept, one that takes on many approaches depending
upon what part of the curriculum is in focus. This then takes the notion
of information literacy and lays it at the feet of all educators, at all
levels!
Doyle finds support in Australia for her definition through Candy’s (1993:
297) affirmation that “all forms of literacy have assumed a central place
in the process of skill formation.” It is an applied concept. Christine
Bruce’s (1996) reflective article Information literacy: how do university
educators understand this phenomenon? parallels Doyle’s notion in that
she asserts that information literacy concerns itself with the mastery
of processes, is a learning tool, and is also something to be learned.
Bruce endorses Doyle’s list of attributes of the information literate individual
by describing these attributes as behaviours (see Appendix 2). Candy also
sees the attainment of information literacy as not only an educational
goal, but also a lifelong goal. It would appear then that information literacy
is a goal, which can be attained through a process that relies on the continuous
learning of specific and evolving behaviours. It is a cluster of abilities
of which the individual can employ ‘to cope with, and to take advantage
of, the unprecedented amount of information which surround...us in our
daily life and work’(Candy 1993: 284). It is not library skills, nor computer
skills (Vallenz 1996?), nor even information-problem solving skills (Eisenberg
& Berkowitz 1990), but all of these are necessary enhancers of information
literacy. One needs to be able to locate and access information, in all
its forms and registers, or to solve information problems through enlisting
a set of behaviours that
develop competencies in the techniques and skills necessary to
survive in the Information
Age. As these techniques and skills strengthen, so too does the individual’s
metacognitive processes (Eshpeter & Gray 1988), thereby affirming Doyle’s
belief that information
literacy involves critical thinking behaviours, that is, knowing how to
learn.
Owen (1996), although he finds agreement with Eisenberg and Berkowitz,
Breivik, Doyle, and ALA’s articulation of information literacy, provides
a critical focus as a means of defining information literacy by examining
what he considers myths regarding this concept. He acknowledges that information
literacy is demonstrated through our capacity to confidently challenge
ideas because of our ability to access and use information effectively,
but he goeson to expand information literacy to include:
-
that, beyond improving study
and research skills, it serves to empower: to find out and act on information;
-
it as a means of personal empowerment
for all, not just young students;
-
besides independent and self-directed
learners, interdependent learners; and
-
enrichment and enlivenment...
of lifelong learning.
He strongly advocates
that the understanding of information literacy be broadened to be inclusive,
and that it becomes the key competency for individual and societal development
in Australia, bringing the argument full circle. If information literacy
is to be as Owen recommends, then teachers must be talking the language
of information literacy. It must be a natural and inclusive part of the
educational process in any curriculum, any unit of work, in any discipline.
It would appear then that information literacy is but a means to an end.
What that end is depends on what the individual or community wants, that
is, what the information needs are for that society, at that time. This
notion also reinforces the ideal that has continually linked learning with
information literacy: the paradigm of lifelong learning.
Whose responsibility
An attempt has been made to bring together the many ideas, and interpretations
surrounding the term information literacy and to accept a definition that
is understood clearly by all stakeholders; a definition that can be interpreted
universally in terms of process and outcomes. But questions still must
be posed.
Attempts to advocate information literacy as a conceptual and process-oriented
continuum of skills into system-wide outcomes continues to be thwarted
in the various Australian school systems. Academics and teacher librarians
have a handle on information literacy within their terms of reference as
does the business community and the community at large. Teachers’ perceptions,
as well as parents’ perceptions and perhaps, more importantly, principals’
perceptions of information literacy is determined by their confrontation
with information problem solving. Are teacher librarians really in the
most favourable position to be the leaders in developing an information
literate community? Is it more appropriate to see this concern as a fundamental
issue for all learning communities, whereby each facilitator works towards
aspects of the prime goal, literacy, through an understanding of information
construction and deconstruction, and the attendant skills of higher level
thinking and problem-solving. Once again do we harp back to the notion
that information literacy is but one way of articulating the many facets
of literacy which is a whole school concern?
If the underlying principle of compulsory education is to develop the individual
to be literate and if inherent in that concept are the skills or processes
that foster lifelong learning or self-directed inquiry (cornerstones of
information literacy?), then so be it. What needs to occur, though, is
a continuous development within educational circles and/ or institutions
to shape and deeply instil the pedagogy of information literacy as essential
for the information society and hence the learning society. At this point
in time, it is teacher librarians who are carrying most of the burden in
terms of guiding future generations in becoming lifelong learners, one
accepted outcome of the process of becoming information literate. Papers
are written, conferences organised, national bodies develop plans and international
associations support theories, but what is missing is the link that takes
all this intellectual activity and re-forms it into effective and considered
change. Certainly all this activity fuels the interest and debate in information
literacy, but information literacy appears to be synonymous with libraries,
and not with essential learning areas for success in an information-based
society demanding continuous learning as technical and social changes continue
to reinforce a type of chaos. It is even further removed from everyday
classroom practice! Perhaps it is time that we look seriously at redefining
literacy (and hence information literacy) in terms of what Ross and Bailey
call new literacy: one that is electronic, is image-driven, appeals to
many senses, is emotional, communicates over distance, is multicultural,
collaborative, artistic and interactive.
What appears to be the genuine concern is a need to look hard at the big
picture of education. No matter how information-rich or information-poor
a learning institution, the stakeholders in the goal towards lifelong learning
- the one accepted and unchallenged outcome of information literacy - is
everyone.
At the school level, this means working together within the same understandings,
and perceptions. It means working towards the same outcomes within an understood
framework which is free from jargon, transferable from subject to subject,
and a part of the natural discourse of educators: a move from pedagogic
knowledge (conceptual) to standardised knowledge (process tool). The theory
may eventually settle into something that becomes a
part of all teaching practice
as a learning community. In the interim, we, as academics and teacher librarians,
talk about information literacy but it is a sad indictment that it is not
an embedded practice in our learning institutions. Despite some research
by Todd (in Booker 1995: 17-26) to establish why information literacy is
having such a trying childhood, school communities are still grappling
with the concept, often see it as an add-on and not a genuine part of the
business of education. There appears to be a gap in the literature in terms
of the theory of information literacy and the everyday classroom practice.
Some research has been documented in terms of tertiary students, including
preservice teachers, and information literacy (Daniel 1997; Wilson 1997)
but there remains a real need to explore ways in which
the concept of information
literacy becomes the natural or the basic practice of teachers. Whilst
teacher librarians know about information literacy from their perspective,
and are well-versed in the methodologies and frameworks that promote and
extend their understanding of information literacy, classroom teachers
and principals generally are not. Research is
needed in exploring the
attitudes and behaviours of classroom teachers and school leaders in the
implementing of pedagogy that allows for the inclusion and development
of information literacy as common practice.
We know that lifelong learning is more than a lofty ideal; it is the outcome
of an information literate society. However, the very people responsible
for empowering students
to become lifelong learners
appear to not understand the information process, let alone information
literacy, well enough to be truly effective learners themselves. We need
to understand why this is and how we can change existing practices. Research
into working out ways in which classroom teachers can develop a belief,
along with ensuing behaviours, in
the teaching of enabling
skills to permit our clients’ to construct their own knowledge and learn
through their independent and interdependent manipulation of information
is long overdue.
Appendix 1
Christine Doyle
Information literacy in
an information society: a concept for the information age
Syracuse, NY: Eric
Clearinghouse on Information and Technology 1994
* adapted by the California
Media and Library Educators Association
Information literacy has
been defined as the ability to access, evaluate, and use information from
a variety of sources.
An information literate
person accesses information
Recognises the need for
information
Recognises that accurate
and complete information is the basis for intelligent decision making
Formulates questions based
on information needs
Identifies potential sources
Develops successful search
strategies
Accesses print and technology-based
sources of information
Is a competent reader
An information literate
person evaluates information
Establishes authority
Determines accuracy and
relevance
Recognises point of view
and opinion versus factual knowledge
Rejects inaccurate and
misleading information
Creates new information
to replace inaccurate or missing information
An information literate
person uses information
Organises information for
practical application
Integrates new information
into an existing body of knowledge
Applies information in
critical thinking and problem solving
Doyle defines information
literacy in terms of attributes of a person.
Appendix 2
Christine Bruce
‘Information literacy:
a framework for higher education.’
The Australian Library
Journal August 1995
To be information literate
an individual must recognise when information is needed and have the ability
to locate, evaluate and use effectively the information needed...Ultimately
information literate people are those who have learned how to learn....
An information literate
person will exhibit the attributes described by Christine
Doyle and will exhibit
the following characteristics:
Independent, self-directed
learning
Implements information
processes
Uses information technology
Values information use
Knows the world of information
Approaches information
critically
Has developed a personal
information style
References
American Library Association Presidential Committee
of Information Literacy. (1989). Final
Report. Chicago,
IL: Author. (ED 316074)
Behrens S. (1994). A conceptual analysis and
historical overview of information literacy. College
and Research Libraries,
309-322.
Breivik P. (1993). Information literacy: What's
it all about. In D. Booker (ed.), Information
literacy: The Australian
agenda (pp. 6-18). Adelaide: University of South Australia.
Breivik P., & Gee E. (1989). Information
literacy: Revolution in the library. New York:
Macmillan.
Bruce C. (1995, August). Information literacy:
A framework for higher education. Australian
Library Journal.
44:158-169.
Bruce C. (1996). Information literacy: How do
university educators understand this phenomenon?
In D. Booker (ed.)
Learning
for life: information literacy and the autonomous learner(pp.
78-86). Adelaide: University
of South Australia.
Candy P. (1993). The problem of currency: Information
literacy in the context of Australia as a
learning society.
Australian
Library Journal. 42: 278-299.
Candy P. (1996). Major themes and future directions:
Conference summary and implications. In D. Booker (ed.), Learning for
life: information literacy and the autonomous learner (pp.
135-149). Adelaide:
University of South Australia.
Candy P., Crebert G. & O'Leary J. (1994).
Developing lifelong learners through undergraduate
education. NBEET
Commissioned Report, No. 28, Part 3. Canberra: AGPS.
Cavalier R. (1993). Information literacy: Why
worry? In D. Booker (ed.) Information literacy:
The Australian agenda.
(pp. 17-27). Adelaide: University of South Australia
Cooper C., & Henderson N. (1995). Motivating
schools to change: Integrating the threads of
school restructuring.
Launceston:
Global Learning Communities.
Daniel E. (1997). High school to university:
What skills do students need? In L. Lighthall & K.
Haycock (eds.),
Information
rich but knowledge poor? Emerging issues for schools and
libraries worldwide
(pp. 53-61). Seattle, WA.: International Association of School
Librarianship.
Diepenbrock C. (1997). Literacy definitions.
Available March 22, 1997.
<http://129.7.160.115/CourseDocs/COMM_3037/3037handouts/Webpages/litdef.html>
Doiron R. (1992). Encounters of the third kind:
The historical perspective. Emergency Librarian.
21(1), 9-10.
Dow J. & Geer R. (1996). Educating for information
literacy. In D. Booker (ed.) Learning for
life: information
literacy and the autonomous learner (pp. 120-127). Adelaide: University
of South Australia.
Doyle C. (1992). Outcome measures for information
literacy within the national education goals of
1990. Final report to
National Forum on Information Literacy. Summary of findings. Syracuse,
NY: ERIC Clearinghouse
on Information Resources. (ED 351033)
Doyle C. (1994). Information literacy in an
information society: A concept for the
information age.
Syracuse, NY: ERIC Clearinghouse on Information and Technology.
Doyle C. (1996). Information literacy: Status
report from the United States. In D. Booker (ed.),
Learning for life:
information literacy and the autonomous learner (pp. 39-48). Adelaide:
University of South
Australia.
Eisenberg M., & Berkowitz R. (1990).
Information
problem-solving: The big six skills
approach to library
and information skills instruction. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Eisenberg M. & Johnson D. (1996). Computer
skills for information problem solving: Learning
and teaching technology
in context. In ERIC Digest (ED: IR 055 809 pending).
Syracuse, NY: ERIC Clearinghouse
on Information & Technology March 1966 (online)
Available <http://ericir.syr.edu/ithome.digests/computer
skills.html>>.
Eshpeter B. & Gray J. (1988). School library
programs and the cooperative planning process:
preparing students
for information literacy. Calgary, AB: Calgary Board of Education.
Gawith G. (1991). Ripping into research: Information
skills for secondary and tertiary
students. Auckland:
Longman Paul.
Harris T. & Hodges R. (1995). The literacy
dictionary: The vocabulary of reading and
writing. Newark,
DE: International Reading Association.
Henri J. (1988). The school curriculum
(2nd ed.). Wagga Wagga: Centre for Library Studies.
Henri J. (1992). Cooperative learning and
team teaching: A conceptual framework. Wagga
Wagga: Centre for Information
Studies.
Henri J. (1995). The information literate school
community: Exploring a fuzzy concept. Scan 14(3):
25-28.
Holloway R. (1996). Information literacy: Diffusion
of an innovation. In D. Booker (ed.), Learning
for life: Information
literacy and the autonomous learner (pp. 32-38). Adelaide: University
of South Australia.
Irving A. (1985). Study and information skills
across the curriculum. London: Heinemann.
Johnson, D. & Eisenberg
M. (1991). Computer literacy and information literacy: A natural
combination. Emergency
Librarian. 23(5): 12-16.
Kaplan N. (1995, March). E-literacies: politexts,
hypertexts and other cultural formations in the
late age of print. Computer
Mediated Communication Magazine. 2(3): 3. Available
<http://www.dec.com/cmc/mag/1995/mar/kaplan.html
>
Kirk J. (1987). Information skills: An educational
perspective for tomorrow. ERIC Digest.
60. (ED 359981)
Kuhlthau C. (1993). Seeking meaning: A process
approach to library and information
services. Norwood,
NJ: Ablex.
Kuhlthau C. (1995). The process of learning from
information. School Libraries Worldwide 1(1):
1-12.
Lenox M. & Walker M. (1994). Information
literacy: A challenge for the future. NASSP Bulletin.
78(562): 57-72.
Lincoln P. (1987). The learning school.
Boston Spa, UK: British Library.
Mayer E. (1996). Information literacy and the
autonomous learner. In D. Booker (ed.). Learning
for life: Information literacy
and the autonomous learner. (pp. 3-5). Adelaide: University of
South Australia.
Mayer E. (1992 November). Putting general
education to work: The key competencies
report. Report No.
3. Carlton, Australia: Australian Education Council and the Ministers
of
Vocational Education,
Employment, and Training.
McGregor J. (1995). Process or product: Constructing
or reproducing knowledge. School
Libraries Worldwide
1(1):
28-40.
Mitchell P. (1996). Online technology in the
curriculum: A reality. Beyond the horizon conference
proceedings 1-5 October
1996. Perth: ASLA.
Mobley V. (1996). Evolving roles of the teacher-librarian.
Beyond
the horizon conference
proceedings 1-5 October
1995. Perth: ASLA.
Owen R. (1996). Chilling the community: Information
literacy and the Hindmarsh Island bridge.
Australian Library
Journal. 45(2): 120-135.
Policy directions for the ILY program.
(1990). Woden, ACT: ILY Secretariat.
Ross, Tweed W. & Bailey, G. (1994). Wanted:
A new literacy for the information age. NASSP
Bulletin. 78(563):
31-35.
Stephenson J. (1996). Developing the autonomous
learner - a capability approach. In D. Booker
(ed.). Learning for
life: Information literacy and the autonomous learner (pp. 23-31).
Adelaide: University
of South Australia.
Taylor R. (1979). Reminiscing about the future.
Library
Journal 104: 1875.
Todd R. (1995). Information literacy: A sensemaking
approach to learning. In D. Booker (ed.).
The learning link:
Information literacy in practice (pp. 17-26). Adelaide: Auslib
Press.
Todd R. (1996a). Information literacy research:
Charting the landscape and moving beyond the
littoral zone. In D.
Booker (ed.). Learning for life: Information literacy and the
autonomous learner.
(pp.
49-60). Adelaide: University of South Australia.
Todd R. (1996b). Independent learning and information
literacy: An essential partnership for
learning. In M. Nimon (ed.).
Learning
resourcefully: challenges for teacher-librarians in the
Information Age (pp.
3-18). Adelaide: Auslib Press.
Vickers C. (1988). All change: The management
of change. London: Video Arts.
Wilson K. (1997). Information skills: The reflections
and perceptions of student teachers and
related professionals.
In L. Lighthall & K. Haycock (eds.). Information rich but knowledge
poor? Emerging issues
for schools and libraries worldwide (pp. 63-79). Seattle, WA:
International Association
of School Librarianship.
Wresch B. (1997). Information literacy: Lessons
that work. Available: <http://www.uwsp.edu/
Acad/math/ilitlesn.html>,
February 3, 1997; e-mail: <bwresch@fsmail.uswp.edu>.
Wright L. & McGurk C. (1996). Curriculum
based information literacy skills for first year
undergraduate students. In
D. Booker (ed.). The learning link: Information literacy in
practice (pp. 136-149).
Adelaide: Auslib.
