Information Literacy -- Context, Culture and Information Seeking

Information Literacy Context, Culture, and Information Seeking

By: Florence Margaret Paisey

Florence Margaret Paisey 2

“Knowledge is of two kinds: we know a subject ourselves, or we know where we can find

information upon it.”

Samuel Johnson, “Life of Johnson” (Boswell, 1775)


Table of Contents

Preface………………………..……………………………………..…...3

Part I

Introduction..……………………….………………….…………......….6

Information and Communication: A Decade of Transformations.......….9

Information Ages……….…………………………………………........12

Information Literacy: The Long March from Obscurity………….…….15

Part II

Information Literacy: Many Roads to Mecca…………………………..26

Information Literacy and Information Seeking Behavior…….………...28

Information Literacy: The Social, Political, and Economic Context…...35

The ACRL Information Literacy Standards: One Model of Many..........43

Information Literacy: The Practice of Instruction………….….………..51

References................................................................................................55


Preface

Part I of this paper discusses the impact of information and communication

technologies within the context of globalization, information-based economies, and the

need for context driven information literacy. A general history of library instruction

describes its evolution from the role of librarians as an “aid to readers” to their current

role in implementing programs that support information literacy as defined and

articulated by the ALA and the ACRL.

Part II discusses information and communication technology within a global context,

identifying cultural and social disparities and the information skill sets appropriate in

inequitable conditions. A context for applying the ACRL Information Literacy Standards

is described and they are analyzed within Wilson’s information behavior model and

levels of information seeking and searching behaviors. The importance of metacognition

as a condition for effective learning is emphasized along with contrasting information

literacy to bibliographic instruction.


Part I

Information Literacy: Social Implications


Introduction

“On an average weekday, The New York Times contains more information than any

contemporary of Shakespeare’s would have acquired in a lifetime” (Anonymous) -- true

or false?

Whatever your opinion may be, the thought is worthy of consideration; it is not

unreasonable or bizarre. It is also not new; The New York Times has been publishing for

156 years, since 1851 – its reputation for in-depth, excellent, reliable coverage has met

with few challenges. In 1996, The New York Times broke with tradition and logged on to

the current digital, information age; it went online.

Such a change revolutionized news coverage; in-depth, comprehensive exposure to an

event became available worldwide within minutes of its occurrence. Online news

coverage gave the celebrated “shot heard ’round the world” new meaning. One shot, one

outcry, one speech, one discovery became public and gambit for immediate and

widespread deliberation with myriad potentialities. Information relating to international

politics, proceedings, terrorist attacks, public affairs, and unexpected incidents was

reported in real time. One could boot up any online connection through a desktop, laptop,

or portable digital device and read detailed updates, with focused interest and varying,

decontextualized viewpoints, at once.

Columbine, Diana’s death, 9-11, Virginia Tech appeared in writing, online, as fast as

reporters could type and upload. Correspondents, individual bloggers, and others with the

capability to upload could comment. The New York Times as well as other newspapers

worldwide, in many languages, had joined the digital information age. If one believes that

the power of the press effects change, that it is an active, transformative tool, rather than


the inverse, a passive mirror of events, then instant global communication through online

reporting has played a significant role in transforming our lives.

The online environment has flourished and proliferated to the extent that readers can

comment on any story publicly, addressing a global audience, through a blog, public

forum, or podcast. Those with access have a voice, say-so, representation; some, as

Lowell Bergman (2007) discusses, believe there is no division between the layperson

who publishes online, and the journalist -- anyone who blogs or participates is reporting.

This is one debate in the Frontline series, News War, a program that examines the issues

and challenges facing media (Frontline, 2007). It is a debate that is relevant here as one

measure of the extent that information and communication technologies (ICTs) have

transformed society, shaped a digital elite, and created the need for an information literate

population with digital skills.

Unlike its traditional rival, broadcast news, online news offers the same capacity for

in-depth, multidimensional commentary as print with the added value of exposition and

ubiquity. Once online, news and commentary of an event spread worldwide. The online

story is written, descriptive, thorough, and pervasive. Broadcasters reach specific

audiences, usually within a cultural and linguistic context – online stories translate

quickly, crossing both cultural and linguistic boundaries. Now, in an average minute, one

online issue of The New York Times not only “contains more information than any

contemporary of Shakespeare’s would have acquired in a lifetime” (Anonymous), but

may also update and change with immediacy. The reality of ubiquitous informational

immediacy is unprecedented. This abundance of information, together with its


immediacy, has effected political, economic, social, psychological, and cultural

transformation.


Information and Communication: A Decade of Transformations

Digital communication technologies existed decades ago, but they were not assumed.

Online newspapers, online galleries, e-photos, e-learning, e-health, virtual shopping, e-

banking, e-mail, and personal e-spaces are all routine, often tedious practices of life now.

Tele-medicine is widening its net through electronic medical records – the U.S. Health

and Human Services initiative, Healthy People 2010, includes storing all medical records

in an electronic format (2001); other initiatives include imaging for storage and

transmission, e-prescribing, as well as evidence-based practice. It will soon be

commonplace for one physician, at point of care, to consult another physician regarding a

complex medical problem tens, hundreds, thousands of miles away by transmitting

sophisticated, detailed images, auditory messages, and text via communication

technology.

The University of Calgary’s “Health Telematics Unit” (Hunter, 2007) aims to “build a

lifelong virtual learning global e-health community” with the “capability to cross all

existing geographical, temporal, political, social, and cultural barriers” that will gradually

change the way healthcare is provided (ibid). If one doubts the fundamental significance

of information and communication technologies (ICTs) in work, education, and everyday

life, look at current habits and expectations of individuals, not only in medicine, but also

in all occupations, and in personal lives.

In education, resources have been extended to the online environment. From primary

to higher education, both educators and students supplement classroom activities with

online activities and informational sources found in proprietary databases, the World

Wide Web, the “invisible Web,” e-mail, instant messaging (IM), blogs, podcasts,


voice/video chat, videoconferencing, and multimedia authoring tools. Electronic

networks support learning communities where learners work on common tasks and

negotiate understanding (Glaser & Bassok, 1989). Other subject-related student

assignments often involve online collaborative learning projects (ETS, 2001), virtual

groups, multimedia presentations, Web pages, blogs, and podcasts.

The workplace has been similarly affected; one can no longer obtain employment

without basic information and communication skills. Employers increasingly require

digital information skills and performances such as facility in utilizing word processing

programs, carrying out functions on spreadsheets, managing e-mail accounts, operating

fax machines, blogging, navigating the Internet as well as posting on social media sites.

Some employers require these skills on computers and mobile devices alike. Supermarket

clerks, waiters, clerical workers, nurse aides, security guards, cosmeticians, auto

mechanics all need to be able to handle technical, digital equipment in the workplace.

From graduating secondary students to high-powered professionals, there is a need for

competent skill in information and communication technologies as well as the ability to

continue adapting to “next generation” tools. Skill with communication technologies was

desirable a decade ago; now it is standard and required to compete for employment and

participate in mainstream society and organizations.

Technical skills to utilize digital technologies and communication tools have become

routine, yet questions, avoidance, and uncertainty regarding informational skills still

abound. We entered the Information Age decades ago (Breivik, 1991); we are a

knowledge society; we broker in information (Drucker, 1993, ETS, 2001, UNESCO,

2005). Habits, customs, institutions, careers, social problems have all been affected by


this shift – it is momentous; it is historic. The need to cultivate an understanding of

information behavior and effective information seeking is no longer an ivory tower

debate; it is a survival issue.


Information Ages

The complexities of change in the current information age have caused no greater

challenge, concern, or delight than in previous information ages. Each information age

permeated and revolutionized culture, often triggering political upheaval. In the mid-

fifteenth century, a technological revolution occurred with its ensuing information surge.

Johannes Gutenberg, a Dutchman, invented and marketed the printing press, a technology

many regard as the invention of the Millennium (Diamond, 1999).

The printing press produced vast amounts of information that became available to the

masses – some praised the capability; others criticized. Martin Luther complained of the

evils of too much information as well as the misplaced motives of many who published.

Yet, without the printing press, Luther’s 95 Theses would not have been mass distributed

and read. Francis Bacon hailed the invention, along with gunpowder and the compass,

stating that it “changed the appearance and state of the whole world” (Bacon, Aphorism

129). Eisenstein (1979) details the impact of the printing press from a historical

perspective, identifying accurate reproduction as one of the most significant aspects of its

influence, particularly in science. The exponential increase of available information and

the means of disseminating accurate reproductions provided a basis for comparative

thought. Many view this capability as a key condition facilitating the Renaissance in

Europe.

Like the digital revolution, the printing press supplied a means to publish and reach

the masses; the written word could inform, incite, caution, calm and divide.

Paradoxically, while expanding the gap between the haves and the have-nots, the literate

and the illiterate, the printing press effectively awakened the masses, defeating inertia and


providing the means to inform and educate a populace. Information enabled individuals

in their struggle for self-government and democratic citizenry. The consequences of the

printing press effected religious, social, and scientific reform that ultimately tilled the

ground in which capitalism developed and democracies took root and thrived.

The digital word reaches the masses with similar effects, yet there are two incalculable

distinctions – it is immediate and global. Given uncensored online access, geographical

context no longer constrains or controls the information one receives or transmits. Yet,

from a global perspective, the inequities in access, education, health, economics, and

income become particularly worrisome. This new divide, the global digital divide, and

the issues inherent, challenge leaders to keep pace with a growing gap between societies

and individuals with access to information and communication technologies (ICTs) and

those still isolated. Those individuals and societies with ICTs can “dramatically improve

communication and the exchange of information to strengthen and create new economic

and social networks” (ETS, 2001); those societies still cut off lose ground daily as

information and communication technologies (ICTs) evolve in education, healthcare, and

information exchange.

Advantages of information and communication technologies (ICTs) do not come

without demands. Regardless of one’s position on technological determinism, as noted

above, these technologies have organized our culture to the extent that gainful

employment mandates basic technical and communication skills. In addition, ICTs, like

the printing press, have generated a glut of information. Honing vital information,

filtering irrelevancies, and negotiating focus (Taylor, 1968) require sharp information

management. The technical ability to employ a word processing program or navigate the


Internet does not suffice; one must be able to focus on, find, structure, describe, and

process information effectively and cognitively. If one does not possess such skills,

information technology backfires, potentially becoming a nuisance. “Technical skills

alone, without corresponding cognitive skills and general literacy, will not decrease the

gaps defined by the digital divide” (ETS, 2001).


Information Literacy: The Long March from Obscurity

Paul Zukowski introduced the notion of information skills in 1974. He is credited

with pioneering the notion of information literate individuals as:

People trained in the application of information resources

in their work. They have learned techniques and skills for

utilizing the wide range of information tools as well as primary

sources in molding information solutions to their problems (IFLA, 2002).

The association between Zukowski’s concept of information skills and the American

Library Association’s (ALA’s) concept of information literacy came out of a period of

educational unrest and reform during the 1970’s and 1980’s in the United States.

Corporate leaders noted that secondary school graduates were unprepared to join the

workforce; educational and political leaders recognized the limitations of American high

school graduates compared to graduates in other developed nations. Several measures

were taken in order to redress this situation. One such measure identified the role of

school media programs in developing critical thinking skills and information

management.

The relationship of libraries to information management comes out of the context of

instructional librarianship and its evolving role in education. In 1876, Melvil Dewey and

Frederick Leypoldt called for a conference of librarians to “promote efficiency and

economy in library work” (ACRL, 2007). The topics of discussion included readings on

professional skills such as cataloguing, indexing, and public relations (ibid). This

meeting, clearly, unified librarians as a professional group; those present established the

American Library Association (ALA) and resolved to hold annual conferences. Dewey


also pioneered the concept of the reference librarian, describing them as “aids to readers”

who would be aware of the resources of the library, the readers’ information needs, and

what resources the reader might utilize (Lipscomb, 2001).

Winsor (1880), the first president of ALA, a scholar librarian, and appointed head of

the Harvard University Library, believed librarians were equally important as subject

faculty in the educational process and should work together with faculty members. His

vision of the library as a workshop where “professors and students could carry on their

labors with the tools necessary for their purposes conveniently at hand” (Lipscomb,

2001) transformed library practices and services. Reference services developed along

with accessible books, open stacks, bibliographic instruction, and extended hours (ibid).

Winsor worked diligently to promote librarians and the importance of library instruction,

establishing practices that upheld “methods of thorough research” and the cultivation of

habits that support seeking and reading “original sources of learning” (ibid).

The initial instructional sessions were couched as peripheral to coursework, and were

described as library orientation, library instruction, or bibliographic skills. These sessions

required a librarian to communicate policies of the library, describe its arrangement,

identify access points, and explain procedures to obtain information from closed stacks.

Formal definition of bibliographic instruction involved teaching “a set of principles or

search strategies” (Salony, 1995). Unfortunately, this practice seldom occurred due to the

subject faculty’s unyielding opposition to librarians as educators. Most faculty members

held an anti-intellectual idea of the librarian and viewed the appropriate role as non-

curricular, limited to cataloguing, indexing, and collection development. This anti-

intellectual view continues to this day, as instructional librarians work persistently to


market their services, persuade subject faculty of the viability of systematic library

instruction, and collaborate in preparing learners to effectively research topics and

manage information.

Other early innovative librarians of significant accomplishment endeavored to expand

the librarian’s role to that of educator. During his tenure as Librarian at Swarthmore

College (1927-1962), Charles Shaw proposed the first instructional program, criticizing

one-shot bibliographic sessions as “haphazard” and unscientific (Salony, 1995). Shaw

championed the concept of the instructional librarian, proposing that librarians gain

expertise in learning theory that would prepare them to develop systematic instructional

programs.

The 1970's marked a shift in attitude toward library instruction. Eastern Michigan

University received a five-year grant from the National Endowment for the Humanities.

This grant supported an expansion of library instructional services, creating a library

outreach program through which librarians identified three major needs (Rader, 1999):

1. The need to be “flexible and diversified” in order to communicate with faculty

and students.

2. The need to be sensitive to the educational needs of students.

3. The need to participate in the academic community.

In 1971, immediately following Eastern Michigan’s effort, the Library Orientation

Exchange (LOEX) was founded as “a clearinghouse for collecting, organizing, and

disseminating bibliographic materials” (Saxony, 1995). During its first meeting, eminent

librarians (Palmer, 1972; Melum, 1972; Kennedy, 1972) discussed the role of libraries in

fulfilling the educational mission of universities. Purposeful discussions of “ideas and


methodologies” took place, establishing the parameters of library instruction within the

university (Rader, 1999). LOEX has continued to evolve into a preeminent international

organization that compiles leading-edge resources for instructional services while

archiving earlier materials.

In 1977, another development strengthened the role of the librarian as educator. The

Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL) outlined instructional

responsibilities of the librarian and created the Library Instruction Roundtable (Rader,

1999). Gradually, librarians organized in support of library instruction. Throughout the

1970’s and 1980’s (Hardesty, 1999), librarians and information scientists increasingly

recognized the educational role of the library and advocated for library instruction.

Specific instructional tasks centered on searching strategies and database selection as

well as conceptual topics such as critical thinking skills.

Meanwhile, in 1981, the Reagan administration “challenged the federal government’s

involvement in educational research and development” (NERPPB, 1998), effecting the

Education Consolidation Improvement Act (ECIA). This controversial statute

deregulated federal oversight of education, while also criticizing the work of state

officials. The Secretary of Education, T. H. Bell, commissioned an inquiry into the state

of American education. This report, A Nation at Risk, detailed academic inadequacies of

American high school graduates, prompting a nationwide system of standardized testing.

This imperative “marked a new era” in education policy,

…an era in which equal educational opportunities

would be measured not so much in terms of financial

aid, special programs, or even racial desegregation but,


rather, in terms of standardized tests (NYSED, 2003).

Out of this political climate, leaders active in educational reform challenged the Reagan

administration’s federal deregulation and proposed elimination of the Department of

Education.

Proactive leaders drew attention to a general malaise in American education by

comparing American student achievement to that of students in other developed nations.

Despite the questionable alarmist agenda, leaders identified gaps in American education.

Paul Hurd asserted, "We are raising a new generation of Americans that is scientifically

and technologically illiterate" (1983). John Slaughter, a former Director of the National

Science Foundation, warned of "a growing chasm between a small scientific and

technological elite and a citizenry ill informed, indeed uninformed, on issues with a

science component" (1983). Educational, corporate, and scientific leaders collectively

sought to describe the economic, social, and cultural landscape in an effort to redress

shortcomings in American educational achievement.

One such report, issued by the National Commission on Libraries and Information

Science and titled Educating Students to Think: The Role of the School Library Media

Program (Mancall, Aaron, & Walker, 1986), conceptualized the role of the library and

information resources in K-12 education. Three principal considerations emanated from

the discussion:

• The role of school library media programs in fostering thinking skills.

• The implications of research in how children process information.

• The application of the previous considerations in developing an information

skills program.


The significance of this meeting and its insightful considerations has yet to be fully

acknowledged – the “cafeteria style” education, described in A Nation at Risk, continues

in practice. Information management skills have been addressed, yet the support, funding,

and implementation of instruction based on the conclusions of this meeting – ten critical

thinking skills, metacognition, and skillful identification of an information need – remain

tangential in most instructional programs.

In 1989, The ALA Presidential Committee on Information Literacy allied with the

American Library Association to examine the challenges of escalating information. They

concluded, “No other change in American society has offered greater challenges than the

emergence of the Information Age” (ACRL, 1989). This report called for disciplinary

education in information skills:

Out of the super-abundance of available information,

people need to be able to obtain specific information

to meet a wide range of personal and business needs” (ibid).

The Commission articulated the concept of an information literate person as one who is

“able to recognize when information is needed and have the ability to locate, evaluate,

and use effectively the needed information.” This concept of information literacy (ALA,

1989) evolved from cognitive task analyses of individuals with expertise in information

management. The definition is a composite of behaviors that underlie effective

performance with information.

While the Commission addressed the need for information literacy within the contexts

of social, business, and political interests, it stated that information literacy is an

imperative or “a survival skill” in the Information Age:


Instead of drowning in the abundance of information that

floods their lives, information literate people know

how to find, evaluate, and use information effectively

to solve a particular problem or make a decision – whether

the information they select comes from a computer, a book,

a government agency, a film, or any number of other

possible resources (ibid).

The conclusions in the ALA Presidential Committee’s report on information literacy led

to the formation of the National Forum on Information Literacy (NFIL).

At the outset, NFIL, chaired by Patricia Breivik, conducted a study on the role of

information literacy within the National Education Goals (2000). Two specific goals

involving information literacy resulted:

• The creation of a comprehensive definition of information literacy.

• The development of outcome measures for the concept (Doyle, 1992).

The NFIL report, composed by Christina Doyle, submits a “concise definition of

information literacy as formulated by the panel” (ibid). It states that “information literacy

is the ability to access, evaluate, and use information from a variety of sources.” In an

expansion of the definition, the report identifies ten behaviors characterizing the

information literate individual. They include:

• Recognizing the need for information.

• Recognizing that accurate and complete information is the basis for

intelligent decision-making.

• Formulating questions based on information needs.


• Identifying potential sources of information.

• Developing successful search strategies.

• Accessing sources of information, including computer-based and other

technologies.

• Evaluating information.

• Organizing information for practical application.

• Integrating new information into a body of knowledge.

• Using information in critical thinking and problem solving (Doyle,

1992).

These ten behavioral attributes, ascribed to an information literate individual, provide the

framework for the ACRL Information Literacy Standards. The attributes encompass a

repertoire of information skills that, when performed sequentially, are intended to result

in effective information management.

The Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL) accepted ALA’s 1989

conception of information literacy defined as a set of abilities requiring individuals

to "recognize when information is needed and have the ability to locate, evaluate, and use

effectively the needed information” (ACRL, 2003). They emphasized that information

literacy is:

• “A complementary cluster of abilities necessary to use information

effectively.”

• “A framework for learning how to learn.”

• “The basis for lifelong learning” (ACRL, 2000).


The Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL) also set forth five content

standards characterizing information literacy. These standards may be paraphrased as:

• Aptitude to grasp the nature of required information.

• Ability to access informational sources.

• Capacity to determine evaluative criteria.

• Competence to apply this information to a designated purpose.

• Awareness of the socio-economic implications of this information.

Information literacy has advanced in response to the abundance of information that

characterizes the Information Age and its information-based economies. Its significance

as a survival skill for all peoples at every socio-economic level has brought such a skill

into the everyday world and valued as a fundamental human right. Such a realization

gives one pause; what began as an aid to readers in a library more than a century ago has

become recognized as a skill on which one’s life can depend.

If this significance seems exaggerated, bear in mind that UNESCO (2006) has

affirmed that “information literacy is not just a necessity, but a basic human right.…”

UNESCO’s initiative, Information For All Programme (IFAP), amplifies the significance

of information literacy:

Information literacy and lifelong learning have been

described as the beacons of the Information Society,

illuminating the courses to development, prosperity

and freedom. Information literacy empowers people

in all walks of life to seek, evaluate, use and create

information effectively to achieve their personal, social,


occupational and educational goals. It is a basic human

right in a digital world and promotes social inclusion

in all nations (IFAP, 2006).

Information for All Programme (IFAP) states that information literate individuals are

able to access information in support of their health, education, work, environment and

all decisions regarding their welfare. UNESCO and IFAP collaborate with the

International Federation of Libraries and Institutions (IFLANET), forming a

UNESCO/IFLA alliance. This union sponsors the compilation of an international

database of information literacy resources, available to the global community. It records

“information literacy outcomes that could be used as a model for new information

literacy actions in different parts of the world” (UNESCO, 2007).

In addition, the UNESCO/IFAP union collaborates with intergovernmental

organizations in an alliance to promote information literacy and lifelong learning. The

National Forum on Information Literacy (NFIL) represents the UNESCO/IFAP alliance

for the United States. UNESCO’s document, “Beacons of the Information Society: The

Alexandria Proclamation on Information Literacy and Lifelong Learning,” defines and

outlines its “policies and programs to promote information literacy and lifelong learning”

worldwide. Within the context of the Information Age, excluding an individual from

access to information and the instruction to manage it has become not only an affront to

one’s freedom, but a threat to survival. While still obscure to most, an awareness of the

need for information literacy has become a distinction characteristic of those sensitive to

the social, scientific, and cultural consequences of the Information Age as well as the

prevailing means of adaptation.


Part II

Information Behavior and the ACRL Information Literacy Standards


Information Literacy: Many Roads to Mecca

Information literacy has evolved from a functional skill to a liberal art involving

information skills, reflection on the nature of information, the equity of its technical

infrastructure, and its social, cultural and philosophical context. It began as a pragmatic

issue in the United States; not only were secondary school graduates inadequately

prepared for the workforce, but their performance in scientific and technological domains

came alarmingly close to illiteracy.

In an effort to resolve this crisis, corporate, scientific, and educational leaders

recommended a holistic curriculum and testing that would foster academic achievement

as well as curricula purposed to develop critical thinking skills. The National

Commission on Libraries and Information Science (1986) recommended that libraries

take on the role of facilitating critical thinking and information skills:

Focus must go beyond location skills

and 'correct answers' and move to strategies

that will help students to develop insight

and faculty in structuring successful approaches

to solving information needs (1986).

At that point, information skills gained recognition as essential skills for which both

teachers and librarians were responsible. Resource-based learning, contrasted to

textbook-based learning, utilized the library or media center as a hub for instructional

activity, integral to the educational mission. Librarians became responsible for collection

mapping or developing collections based on curricular objectives. Rather than answer

specific questions driven by textbooks, students drew on information resources as they


researched assignments. Further developments occurred with the publication of the book

Information Power (1988; 1998) in which the American Association of School Librarians

(AASL) established the vision and mission of information literacy in school library media

programs.

In 1989, the ALA Presidential Committee on Information Literacy expressed what has

become the definitive concept of the 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 (ALA, 1989).

This concept, with the inclusion of survival skills and lifelong learning, broadened the

educational rationale of information literacy and the context of the information literate

person. The Commission extended the context of information literacy from workplace

demands and schooling to the context of personal welfare and benefit. The AASL

Information Literacy Standards addressed information within the context of academic

needs while also emphasizing “authentic learning” that “provides a bridge between

formal, school-based learning and independent lifelong learning” (Information Power,

1998). In 2000, the American Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL)

published the ACRL Information Literacy Standards intended to meet the information-

seeking needs of those in higher education, while also supporting self-directed, lifelong

learning.


Information Literacy and Information Seeking Behavior

In view of this background, one may interpret the concept of the information literate

person either broadly or narrowly. The distinction between information behavior, in

general, or information seeking and searching, in particular, will, largely, determine the

focus. If information literacy is to serve one within the context of globalization and the

information age, it requires focus on the broader conception, which includes the effects of

the social, cultural, and philosophical context as well as any academic pursuit in which

one may engage. Wilson (2000) has described levels of information behavior and

information seeking. According to Wilson, information behavior involves all human

interaction with sources and channels of information, while information seeking involves

purposive behavior that requires information to “satisfy some goal.” Both conceptual

facets address the character of information in one’s life – the general and the situational.

This distinction could be perceived as a philosophical issue involving the significance

one attaches to information and its impact on both individuals and society. If one takes a

broad view, information behavior would include accessing information regarding health,

employment, housing, food supply, transportation, recreation, social interaction, and all

things relative to one’s personal, social, economic, and educational welfare. It would also

imply a philosophical sense of information behavior or the nature of one’s interaction

with information and information sources. In this sense, information and information

literacy would enable one to fathom the nature of an information need and seek to meet

that need with an awareness of the socio-cultural context.

The distinction between information literacy broadly conceived, as survival skill,

viable in an age of globalization, and information literacy more narrowly conceived, as


an academic skill, can be illustrated from the literature in information behavior and

information seeking. Savolainen (1995) studied information behavior as it relates to

problem solving within a socio-cultural context. He looked at the way one seeks

information to solve specific problems that arise in the course of everyday life.

Savolainen hypothesized that social, cultural, and individual factors determine one’s way

of life and mastery of life, which in turn determine the selection, relevance, and

effectiveness of information sources. The essential question in Savolainen’s empirical

study (ibid) addressed how one’s way of life and mastery of life affect everyday life

information seeking (ELIS). Savolainen’s study compared the information seeking habits

of industrial workers and teachers in Tampere, Finland.

Savolainen’s researchers gathered data by means of interviews that focused on topics

such as one’s job, the nature of one’s leisure activity, and practices for obtaining

information. Interviewees were also asked to select a recent problematic situation and

describe the means by which each sought information. Conclusions supported earlier

studies in which interviewees with a higher level of education seek information more

actively from various channels than those with a lower level of education. The notions of

way of life and mastery of life were not found to be sole determinants of the selection,

relevance, and effectiveness of information sources. It was suggested that the research

framework be redefined in light of how the character of an individual’s informational

orientation is built. This feature, informational orientation, or how people emphasize

cognitive and affective elements when approaching everyday problems, was found to be

more significant than way of life.


Savolainen’s comparative study on ELIS actually raised more questions than it

answered. Yet, this study, based on Dervin’s sense-making process model (1983),

addressed information seeking within the broad context of personal, social, and cultural

issues rather than within the narrower context of an academic endeavor. His study also

demonstrated that education alone is not the sole determinant of effective information

seeking; individual and situational variables play a significant role. Implications for

future studies point to how individual cognitive and affective elements determine one’s

informational orientation, as well as how stressful situational factors play into

information seeking. Kuhlthau’s (1991) work in associating affective experience and

information seeking may be relevant here, though the interaction of affect on the search

process calls for further investigation. These issues address information behavior and

information seeking in daily life, but are also relevant to information seeking in academic

inquiry.

In contrast to Savolainen’s investigation of ELIS, conceptual models of information

seeking and searching (Krikelas, 1983; Kuhlthau, 1991; Eisenberg & Berkowitz, 1993;

Ellis, 1989; 1993; Leckie & Pettigrew, 1996) provide a conceptual framework or

methodology intended to support academic or occupational inquiry. Models of

information seeking (IS) within an academic context identify characteristics of an

information search that typify an inquiry-based search. Examples of these models include

Eisenberg and Berkowitz’s Big 6 problem-solving strategy and curriculum intended to

teach information and technology skills. As is evident from its reference, the Big 6 model

delineates six steps in a linear problem solving sequence. Originally, the Big 6 model

addressed inquiry-based or resource-based learning in school media programs; it has


since been expanded to include everyday life issues and work-related issues. While the

Big 6 model added contexts, the skills and strategies stipulated remained fundamentally

the same.

Kuhlthau’s information search model (ISP) has been widely employed in academic

contexts. Her approach derives from Dervin’s sense-making model (1983) where an

individual is actively engaged in finding meaning by assimilating information that

extends one’s knowledge and facilitates the development of a point of view. Kuhlthau’s

model may be regarded as a conceptual framework or theory of information seeking

behavior. Its origin draws from Kelly’s (1963) personal construct theory that “describes

the affective experience of individuals involved in the process of constructing meaning

from the information they encounter” (Kuhlthau, 1991). In layman’s terms, personal

construct theory describes feelings that a person formulates in developing perspective or

in “getting the picture” of a situation.

Kuhlthau’s information search process looks at information seeking from the user’s

perspective, rather than a bibliographic or systems centered perspective (1991). It

includes six stages or discrete steps that guide a student through the research process

along with thoughts and feelings that might be associated with the task. Kuhlthau

summarized her approach as follows:

The information research process is a holistic learning

process encompassing the affective experience of

students as well as their intellect. Students' experience

within the process must be clearly understood in order

for teachers and media specialists to design library


assignments and plan instruction that encourage rather

than impede learning (1989).

Kuhlthau’s Information Search Process (ISP) describes information seeking stages with

concomitant affective experiences. Because Kuhlthau has looked at the influence of

affect on information seeking, Wilson (1999) includes her model in both the broad

perspective of information behavior and the narrower focus of information seeking.

Ellis’ conceptual model (1989), like Kuhlthau’s, is characterized by a micro-approach

or approach to information seeking based on studying small groups or the user’s

perspective. However, employing an empirical research method, grounded theory

approach, Ellis investigated the information seeking behaviors of researchers in relation

to their general work situation and project specific information requirements. He

concluded that eight categories were “sufficient to describe the information seeking

patterns of the researchers and form the behavioral model” (Ellis, 1997). These categories

or “features” include: surveying, chaining, monitoring, browsing, distinguishing,

filtering, extracting, and ending.

Similarly, Leckie & Pettigrew (1996) looked at the specific information seeking

behaviors of professional groups and posited an IS model applicable to professionals. As

with Kuhlthau and Ellis, their model views information behavior from the user’s needs

and perspective. It is a macro-model of the information search process of professionals,

beginning with the context of professional roles and tasks engendered by those roles.

Information needs arise from task requirements. Three features characterize the

information search: awareness, sources, and outcomes.


Understanding how individuals search for information benefits our understanding of

human behavior as well as informing systems designers regarding user behavior. Such

information provides insight into what features in information retrieval systems support

users in their search for information. Wilson & Jarvelin (2003) underscore the importance

of understanding information search behavior as it relates to IR systems as well as

facilitating the work of the information content developer. They assert that an

understanding of information searching may:

…enable the information content developer to

specify more clearly what navigational routes

are needed through the information and exactly

what kind of information or data styles need to be

in the record.

Wilson & Jarvelin (ibid) cite Ellis’ work on chaining (1989; 1993) and suggest that an

IR system should provide navigational routes that include Boolean search strategies as

well as the capacity to chain through citations backwards and forwards. In addition, they

point out that most information search models indicate the importance of personal

networking for the researcher. Given this, IR systems could include features that would

offer users an option to connect to others interested in the same research, thereby

facilitating collaborative work (ibid). This particular service is already available through

the LinkedIn network, though such an option within the IR system would streamline the

process and enhance its usability.

Fundamentally, information literacy enables one to discern the channels by which one

accesses tacit and explicit information in diverse situations, organizations, professions,


and cultures. It involves recognition that information is a dynamic entity, that it is

connected to social, cultural, and occupational contexts, and that it affects individuals and

situations through interaction and interchange. It is through this interaction that

information is expanded and transformed. As such, the information literate person would

possess information skills that enable one to interact with information sources and

communicate across cultures, recognizing that particular situations may involve

specialized information seeking skills. Information literacy itself would not change with

one’s situation; it involves recognition of and regard for the differences that may exist in

access and retrieval, while also recognizing general information behaviors that cross

cultures.

Situations, social norms, organizational hierarchy, access channels, and characteristics

of communication among groups vary; information literacy is the facility that enables one

to recognize informational channels and interact effectively with these varied systems.

Such ability not only involves technical skill and information management, but also

cultural competence or an understanding that diverse cultures and contexts convey

information in a range of ways, requiring cultural knowledge and situational awareness.


Information Literacy: The Social, Political, and Economic Context

The nature of the information environment, channels of communication, and

information flow determine the extent to which information literacy involves expertise

with ICTs (Spink & Cole, 2001). This is not a reference to everyday life information

seeking (ELIS) where people acquire information that will orient themselves to daily life,

rather than to occupational demands (Savolainen, 1995). Rather, it refers to the

penetration of ICTs within countries and their subcultures.

While individuals in dominant, information-based countries require expertise in

information and communication technologies (ICTs), approximately one billion people

worldwide lack any connection to ICTs. Information seeking and use will be markedly

different for these people than for those in an information-based economy –

demographics, language, access, information flow, communication channels, social

hierarchy, and behavioral norms all determine the nature of information habits, the

context in which individuals share information, and the interaction with information

sources.

In addition, the attitude of individuals toward information or informational orientation

will vary in contexts, cultures, and situations. Whether the source of an information need

is prescribed or imposed (Gross, 2001), extrinsic or intrinsic, formal or informal will

influence the user’s response to the information need, construction of a query, motivation

to satisfy the need, and treatment of the information (Dervin, 1992; Savolainen, 1995).

The effect of context on information seeking has also been a focal point in information

behavior research, yet the role of location or social setting has had little consideration.

Pettigrew introduced the concept of information grounds to describe a social space where


“people come together for a singular purpose but from whose behavior emerges a social

atmosphere that fosters the spontaneous and serendipitous sharing of information”

(Pettigrew, 1999; Fisher et al., 2007). Such social spaces will occur among all social

strata, but they form a crucial source of information sharing among immigrant

populations and those in lower socio-economic populations who are information poor.

No widely accepted definition of information literacy identifies the library as its locus.

Yet, the preponderance of models describing the information literate user place the

individual in an affluent, Western, high-tech library with a circumscribed skill set

appropriate to information seeking in a digital environment. Technological skills are

necessary within a digital microcosm, but they will, generally, be ineffectual, in the world

at large. While individuals in dominant, information-based economies require expertise in

information and communication technologies, such expertise is fundamentally irrelevant

in developing countries and among the information poor where only 7% of the population

has access to the Internet (UNCTAD, 2005).

Managing information effectively – in other words, information literacy – not only

exists independently of ICTs, but also preceded them. Indeed, Mancall, Aaron, & Walker

(1986) recommended developing information skills programs a decade prior to the surge

in telecommunications. The ability to communicate and manage information effectively

has always distinguished human interactions and endeavors – such behaviors were simply

denoted differently (Raseroka, 2006). Globalization and the Information Age, existing

due to advances in ICTs, have drawn attention to the phenomenon of information and

with that attention an effort to understand information behavior and its impact on

individuals, societies, and economies.


These considerations have prompted extensive research in information behavior and

information seeking as well as the effective exchange and use of information on both a

macro-level or cultural level and a micro-level or situational level (Lee, 2004). The

information glut, occurring in advanced societies, has necessitated the development of an

efficient means of interacting with information technologies and the superfluity of

information they have generated; hence, the development of user-centered information

systems as well as behavioral strategies and academic curricula pertaining to information

literacy. However, as stated previously, the majority of people worldwide still do not

have access to ICTs. As of 2004, only 3 out of every 100 Africans used the Internet,

compared with 1 out of every 2 residents in G8 countries (CSTD, 2006).

Estimates of the existing disparities among countries and communities with the

opportunity to access information and communication technologies (ICTs) vary sharply,

depending on how digital access is defined and the indicators employed as measurement.

The United Nations Commission on Science and Technology for Development (CSTD)

defined the digital divide as:

…the disparities between countries at different

stages of economic development with regard to

their opportunities to access ICTs and their ability to

use them for a variety of purposes (CSTD, 2006).

The International Telecommunications Union (ITU) has reported that the digital

divide is “shrinking” in terms of fixed lines, mobile telephony, and Internet usage (ITU,

2007). Within the same paragraph, ITU also states that the gap is widening in least

developed countries (ibid, p.10). This compartmentalizing with regard to those countries


developed and those not, masks the reality that the distribution of ICTs remains starkly

inequitable and conditions for the most impoverished peoples are worsening. Even if

access to ICTs is possible in undeveloped economies, such access is restricted, governed

unfairly, and of low bandwidth or poor quality. While digital capabilities and information

economies evolve in advanced societies, the divide grows in LDCs. In 2000, John

Gannon, Chairman of the National Intelligence Council, stated:

In the globally wired world, the persistence of poverty

amid wealth will become more striking. As uneven

distribution of wealth becomes more visible, discontent

will increase, particularly among the 600 million relatively

poor urban dwellers in developing countries whose aspirations

will exceed their economic prospects (Gannon, 2000).

In 2007, seven years after Gannon delivered this speech, worldwide circumstances have

borne out his projection (ITU_UN, 2006; 2007).

In theory, information literacy and access to the Internet are open to all and provide

the means to promote political, economic, and social development. Facts tell a different

story. The United Nations General Assembly President, Sheikha Haya Rashed Al

Khalifa, reported that globalization has had an extremely uneven impact on the lives of

the world’s poorest people. She stated:

The paradox is evident when some in the world

are waiting in line to buy new consumer technologies

at a cost almost equal to the annual per capita income

of hundreds of millions of people (2007).


She quoted Mahatma Gandhi: “In poor places, people see God in a piece of bread.” In

this speech, she addressed the unfortunate situation in which Least Developed Countries

(LDCs) have found themselves: “They (LDCs) have benefited least from globalization,

and have been affected most by its negative impact” (UN, 2007). Moreover, even if

LDCs gained access to advanced information and communication technologies, most of

the content on the Internet is related to national or international concerns (ITU_UN,

2007) – in other words, content on the Internet is not directly related to the economic and

social issues that impoverished individuals face daily. In order to motivate such

populations to use the Internet on a regular basis, content needs to be more diverse and

relevant to the needs and concerns of all social strata.

The Internet offers enormous opportunity in business, education, and health, but ten

out of approximately 6,000 living languages dominate the Internet. This disquieting fact

underscores the reality of the digital divide. Ten languages represent eighty percent of the

discourse on the Internet, leaving more than 5,900 languages with little or no

representation. Furthermore, if linguistic structure relates to worldview, cultural diversity

on the Internet is constricted; indeed, the Internet may well be described as a culture

itself. As such, the representation of diffuse cultures would not be synchronous with the

nature of the Internet, as it currently exists. Illiteracy is still another situation.

Digital communication may be scant in rural regions, but information literacy is no

less relevant. Indeed, Floridi (2002a) views information behavior is as fundamental and

and philosophically important as ‘being, ‘knowledge’ ‘life’, ‘intelligence’, ‘meaning’ or

‘moral good and evil.’ In this sense, Floridi (ibid) drawing on Shera’s earlier work (1961)

views information science as a discipline appropriate to the study of social dimensions of

knowledge and the way it is disseminated.


This philosophical view of information (PI) brings the study of information behavior

into an applied discipline of information, the Epistemology of Social Knowledge (ESK).

This view takes into account the fundamental social and psychological aspects of

information and their relationship to dimensions of knowledge and human information

behavior (Spink & Cole, 2002; Spink & Currier, 2005; Spink & Cole, 2006)). Given this

view, information behavior, information seeking, and the search process involves the

study of information as an evolutionary social phenomenon, as “it evolved patterns and

practices of human information behaviors” (Madden, 2003) and the effect of information

on the “human condition” (Floridi, 2002a; Floridi, 2002b).

If one accepts the view of information as a social phenomenon, illiterate populations

will have developed organized channels of transmitting and utilizing information. Within

this context, information has affected the evolution of that culture as surely as

information, the digital divide, and information-based economies are transforming

literate, affluent cultures. A simplistic example of information as a social phenomenon in

a rural context entails the process an individual engages if, in a rural region, no cell signal

can be accessed, no library is available, no school, college, or university is nearby.

Remote islanders, theoretically, have access to telecommunications, yet live on

subsistence wages hundreds of miles from a telecommunications system. How do

individuals in this socio-cultural context effectively meet their information needs?

There are ways of obtaining information in any culture, but communication channels

are culturally bound; answers and understanding may not be familiar to the affluent,

digitally sophisticated individual, unfamiliar with diverse cultures – perhaps ethnocentric.

What behaviors or skills does one ascribe to an information literate individual given rural


or undeveloped conditions? The recent film Babel comes to mind (Inarritu, 2006). This

film illustrates the consequences of human and cultural insensitivity combined with

maladaptive information behaviors. It is realistic; a failure to exchange information

meaningfully is not only a failure to communicate; it is a failure to recognize cultural

convention or channels that inform individuals and situations. Information literacy

involves the ability to identify how a culture organizes and exchanges information with

productive results. It is not only about the world of scholarship and digital retrieval; as a

social phenomenon, it is about the humane and the diverse ways peoples organize,

interact, and communicate.

While affluent individuals, in affluent environments, have advantages of digital

communication, most individuals subsist without adequate nutrition, healthcare, or

shelter. Within these cultures, information literacy is as much a survival issue as in

cultures mandating ICT skills for gainful employment. The behaviors characteristic of the

impoverished but information literate individual in a rural region may seem insubstantial

to an outsider, yet within the culture, such an individual gains control and the promise of

meeting their social, economic, and educational goals. Whatever the economic condition,

whatever the educational level, whatever the culture, a system of information exchange

and flow will exist. Where there is information exchange and flow, there will be norms or

dimensions of an information system that reflect information behavior; knowledge of that

system involves information skills or information literacy, empowering a person to self-

directed, lifelong learning.

How do user behaviors of those in developed countries compare with those in

undeveloped countries? Is it absurdly confrontational to mention the inadequacies of the


Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL) Information Literacy Standards?

Or is one to step back, acknowledging that these Standards, as a whole, are viable,

provide a broad strategy for information seeking and management, but apply optimally in

specific contexts?


The ACRL Information Literacy Standards: One Model of Many

Whether one takes an ethnographic view of information as culture, or the sociological

view of information as a cultural construct, an understanding of the observable, of how

people actually “forage” information, determine what is meaningful or useful, and

communicate in their small worlds will foster insightful understanding of information

behavior and adaptive strategies. Context, situation, domain, and individual differences

shape information behavior. Information behavior is as varied and complex as any other

behavioral repertoire.

Nearly two decades of discussion and exploration of behaviors particular to

information literacy have yielded interesting definitions and information seeking models

(Taylor, 1968; Belkin, 1981; Kuhlthau, 1991; Dervin, 1983; Wilson, 1996; 1999; Bruce,

1997; Spink, 2001; Floridi, 2002b; ACRL, 2000; CAUL, 2003; SCONUL, 1999). These

representative researchers or associations have more consensus than conflict (Owusu-

Ansah, 2003), yet an overarching model of information seeking, adaptable in varied

contexts, situations, and domains, remains elusive. Various foundational models of

information behavior, in particular information seeking behavior, have been posited, yet

there is no theory of information behavior or information seeking behavior that integrates

prevailing data (Jarvelein & Vakkari, 1990; Jarvelein & Vakkari, 1993; Julien, 1996;

Julien and Duggan, 2000).

Various foundational models and theories on aspects of information behavior,

including information seeking behavior, information needs and uses, information

retrieval systems, and library and information services have been posited. Pettigrew &

McKechnie (2001) conducted a content analysis that looked at what theories have


emerged in information seeking (IS), the derivation of these theories, and how these

theories are employed. They investigated nearly twelve hundred articles, in 6 peer-

reviewed journals, published between 1993 and 1998, looking for basic characteristics of

articles, which theories were “deployed,” and the frequency with which particular

theories were cited, indicating a theoretical subset “both inside and outside IS.” They

found no predominating theory of information behavior or information seeking behavior

in those journals selected for content analysis.

Pettigrew & McKechie (ibid) discuss possible explanations that relate to the

fragmentation of a theoretical base. First, they identify the confused use of the term

theory within IS and the various definitions of theory both generally and as required by

specific disciplines. A theory in the humanities is defined differently from theory in

mathematics. Petttigrew and McKechie (ibid) also refer to varied definitions of theory

according to subfields in IS, how researchers in IS perceive theory, an author’s

inconsistent use of the term within an article, and general inconsistent naming

conventions of a particular theory. Peter Ingwersen’s work was offered as an example of

the varied ways one theory may be referenced. His work has been alternatively called a

theory of “knowledge structures, theory of the interaction IR process, cognitive theory of

IR, cognitive viewpoint of IS, theory of cognitive space, and cognitive theory of

polyrepresentation.” It is recommended that authors identify the discipline in which a

theory originated along with primary sources for scholars who may have little knowledge

of the theoretical origin. Consistent naming conventions would also reduce confusion

regarding the varied theories credited to the development of IS theory.

Wilson’s macro-model (1999) of information behavior approximates a sound attempt

at formulating a framework or underpinning for information behavior and information


seeking. This theory offers a capacity to subsume micro-models of information searching

within the larger concept of information behavior and information seeking. Wilson’s

conceptual framework provides for various components of information behavior from the

contextual trigger, barriers in responding to this trigger, possible articulation of an

information need, and the flow of behaviors influenced by individual differences and

resources.

Wilson’s model (1999) begins with a person in context and an event that triggers the

information need. Wilson’s model does not immediately progress to question negotiation

and information seeking. Rather, his model provides for an impediment to question

negotiation. Impediments would include independent and intervening variables such as

stress and coping, cognitive styles, education, demographics, environment, risk, and

reward among other known pressures on any behavior, including information behavior.

This model stands as a behavioral model, rather than an information seeking model, as

the information need triggered may not be acted upon if the multiplicity of variables

possible overwhelms the individual.

However, if information seeking occurs, one can introduce an information seeking

behaviors and repertoires, or nest an IS model that would characterize the process of

satisfying the information need. One may also tier or map Wilson’s model to contain

micro-level information searching models such as Ellis’ chaining (Ellis & Haugan, 1997),

Kuhlthau’s phenomenological stages (Kuhlthau, 1991), or Bates’ metaphorical

berrypicking (Bates, 1989). While nesting models of micro-level searching, Wilson’s

conceptual frame of information behavior is retained as well as his notions of information

seeking and searching, then use.


Wilson’s macro-behavioral model (1999), together with his structure describing the

sequence of information seeking and searching to information use, offers a feasible

representation of the events and variables active during an individual’s experience with

an information need and possible search. Given that one may nest any inclusive model of

information seeking and searching, the ACRL Information Literacy Standards are a

practicable option. They would nest in three tiers within Wilson’s information seeking,

searching, and use schema. Unlike the aforementioned models of Ellis, Kuhlthau, and

Bates, the ACRL Information Literacy Standards do not weigh in as a theory of

information searching, nor have they been based on any specific research base. They are,

however, a widely accepted set of behavioral standards purposed to develop information

literacy.

As such, the ACRL Information Literacy Standards set forth strategies intended to

bring about meaningful and ethical individual information seeking, searching, use, and

production. They may be viewed as a template, shell, methodology, or “framework” by

which an individual can effectively organize information behaviors. Key in learning this

composite of skills is the notion of performances, or the knowledge and skills learners are

expected to acquire. Performances, in an instructional sense, refer to sequential behaviors

an individual knows how to do with efficient, seemingly reflexive, intuitive ability

(Grabe & Grabe, 2001). The ACRL Information Literacy Standards include 22

performances or performance indicators within the five general standards. Each of these

performances describes definitive outcomes that demonstrate knowledge and practice of

the performance or, in effect, information literacy, as conceived and described by the

ACRL.


Fundamental aspects of information behavior such as identifying an information need,

negotiating (Taylor, 1968) or eliciting (Wu, 2003) a question, accessing information,

evaluating the information, and applying the information with purposeful results (Taylor,

1968; Belkin, 1980; Kuhlthau, 1991; Wilson, 1996; 1999; Dervin, Spink, 2001; Floridi,

2002b) establish a continuum of information seeking and searching behaviors; these

behaviors are reflected in the ACRL Standards. The five explicit ACRL Standards derive

from the 1989 ALA definition of the information literate person. The standards are

comprehensive, fundamental information skills from which specific dimensions or

performances of information literacy emanate. The ACRL performances or performance

indicators specifically relate to the academic dimension of information literacy; they

apply to the requirements of formal research or inquiry as conducted by students,

scholars, specific professionals, and researchers. The performances do not and are not

intended to serve all professions and all everyday life information needs; such a

distinction is essential in appropriately regarding and applying the ACRL Standards.

Wilson (2000) views information behavior as “the totality of human behavior in

relation to sources and channels of information, including both active and passive

information seeking and information use.” His model of information behavior including a

person in context, an event triggering an information need, and a series of possible

intervening variables has been identified in the previous section (Wilson, 1996).

However, as one proceeds through the experience of this intervening process, Wilson

arrives at a point where an individual will continue (or not) to seek such information that

will satisfy the need, be processed or integrated and finally applied. He identifies three

levels or tiers of interactive information behaviors: information seeking, information


searching, and information use. These levels may be associated with the ACRL

Information Literacy Standards. They are the broad strokes of user behavior; many

information methods or models will correspond to these levels of user behavior, though

the model at issue is the ACRL model.

Wilson (ibid) defines information seeking as the purposive seeking of information as a

response to a perceived information need “to satisfy some goal.” He defines his second

level of information behavior as information searching. He views this behavioral level as

micro-behavior where the user accesses information sources, interacts with systems of all

kinds, and determines the criteria for evaluating the quality and relevance of information

accessed. Higher and lower order thinking skills are required as an individual determines

the extent of information involved in satisfying the initial need, reconstructing the

question, or iterating the process. Situational features, such as access to ICTs, location,

environment, values, socio-economic conditions, and domain largely determine the

nature of one’s interaction with information sources and channels on this level. Wilson’s

third level of information behavior, information use, consists of “the physical and mental

acts involved in incorporating the information found into the person’s existing knowledge

base” (ibid). Physical acts would include marking significant sections of text, while

mental acts involve comparing new information with one’s existing knowledge.

Wilson’s three levels of information behavior correspond to four of the

five ACRL Information Literacy Standards. Information seeking or determining one’s

information need and formulating a question relate to Standard 1. Information searching

or accessing information required to satisfy one’s information need, adopting search

strategies, and determining the criteria for evaluation and relevance of the information


found, all relate to Standards 2, 3, and 4. As stated above, Wilson (2000) views

information searching, exemplified by the performance indicators of Standards 2, 3, and

4, as a micro-level of behavior. Hence, transient, situational factors such as access to

ICTs, social norms and values, the subject domain, and socio-economic conditions shape

the nature of the interaction with information channels and sources, in other words, the

character of the information search.

Standard 5, understanding “the economic, legal, and social issues” surrounding the

information, relates, in part, to the application of the information found. These are issues

where criteria for credibility will apply globally with local or situational variation. Legal

issues, such as copyright, plagiarism, and privacy, or ethical principles, such as the

treatment of experimental subjects and security, cross national boundaries. Censorship

and freedom of speech, while addressed internationally, may have criteria determined by

local authorities, as would institutional policies, idiosyncratic measures of netiquette, and

a favored documentation style. On a stretch, one could include Standard 5 in Wilson’s

notion of information use, or what one deems acceptable. However, the concept of

Standard 5 relates more to issues of practice and context as well as situational issues of

information, rather than to the informational quality. An experiment could yield valid

data, but have been conducted employing unethical methods.

The ACRL performances directly relate to essential information skills of intellectual

inquiry and information seeking. Performances, in general, involve procedural knowledge

that demonstrates proficiency of a content standard. The nature and description of

performances, ultimately, varies with contextual and situational features as well as the

discipline, the domain, and the individual. While the ACRL Standards may be viewed as


general information seeking skills, the ACRL performances are specific to scholarly or

educational endeavor. As such, they are limited, culturally biased or specific, and exclude

those outside of an academic arena. UNESCO/IFAP endorses the ACRL Information

Literacy Standards through their alliance with the National Forum on Information

Literacy (NFIL).

The Standards are also an awareness raising tool and an enabling tool that “establishes

guidelines” by which educators can integrate a curriculum for information literacy. These

values are at the core of UNESCO’s commitment to information literacy. However, the

ACRL standards as a whole, inclusive of the performances, do not characterize broad

information behaviors. As such, they will not serve routine information seeking and

searching. Understanding the purpose and goals of these Standards is as essential as

understanding their performances and outcomes.


Information Literacy: The Practice of Instruction

Human information behavior and information seeking is one aspect of understanding

human nature; it specifically involves the interaction between individuals and information

sources, tacit and explicit, passive and active. Information literacy is not simply a set of

discrete bibliographic or information skills; it involves an approach to dealing with

information as process and should engender an internalized facility to recognize the need

for information, define the need, locate, access, evaluate, and synthesize information

relating to that defined need.

Critical thinking skills and metacognition are at the core of information literacy. The

information literate person possesses an awareness of the parameters of one’s knowledge,

is open to the sense of uncertainty, can define the uncertainty, transform uncertainty to a

specific question, thesis, or hypothesis, and develop strategies to resolve the uncertainty

or satisfy the information need. There is a clear, integrated cognitive process that typifies

an information literate person who has a capacity for lifelong learning.

This internalized, cognitive process contrasts a bibliographic skill set comprising

discrete, fragmented abilities with random tools designed for information management. It

is a logical progression from bibliographic skill instruction that focuses on subject-related

information resources, but not the development of a cognitive facility that activates a

systematic behavioral response to one’s perceived information need. The underlying

distinction between the objectives of information literacy and bibliographic skills is this

dynamic cognitive process.

The information literate individual approaches information with an internalized

ability to process and paraphrase information based on evaluative criteria. Such an


individual can move about the world of information with efficiency, competence, and

refined skill. It is an applied method of satisfying the information need: it is not a simple

skill; it is not static; it will evolve in accordance with a person’s informational needs and

sophistication of thought.

The task of teaching information literacy is intended to be a collaborative effort

between the discipline-based faculty member and the instructional librarian. As a team,

the subject faculty member and librarian can coordinate information literacy curricula

with specific disciplinary related goals. However, there seems to be a black hole of

papers and opinions on how this collaboration or partnership can be achieved.

The reality of establishing a well-rounded, systematic information literacy program

relates to the general academic culture that is nurtured in a college, university, or school.

Is information viewed as a viable subject in its own right? Is information literacy viewed

as an essential skill, integral to the educational mission of the organization? Few subjects

could be more valuable, both pragmatically and philosophically, than information and

information literacy. One hears erudite scholars and societal leaders talk stridently and

informatively about globalization and the information age, yet when faced with turning

words into action and funding a program of information literacy, few deliver.

Grafstein (2002) believes librarians and information specialists are best equipped to

teach generic information seeking skills, focused on tools and general evaluative criteria.

She states:

There is a set of generic skills that must crucially be

imparted in developing information literate students.

These are skills that apply to the process of information


retrieval and evaluation across academic disciplines, and,

additionally, to the information needs of everyday

life. It is this set of skills that librarians, in their capacity

as information specialists, are uniquely qualified to teach.

Grafstein’s view focuses on location, access, search strategies, information retrieval, and

basic objective criteria for the evaluation of information. These are essential, appropriate

aspects of instruction in information literacy. They can also be taught intermittently,

accommodating arbitrary, or one-shot bibliographic sessions. Yet these skills, in

themselves, will not engender information literacy, as defined by the ALA. They address

mechanistic aspects of information retrieval and the application of static evaluative

criteria. They do not deal with developing an awareness of socio-cultural, contextual, or

situational factors that affect how one perceives a problem, constructs the information

query, formulates a search strategy, and satisfies the information need.

In addition, the information need or uncertainty and subsequent question come out of

an uncertainty or perceived “gap” in ability between one’s individual knowledge base and

new information. One’s perception of this gap shapes the information question that will

generate an approach to inquiry. The ability to identify or define the relationship between

new information and an existing knowledge base involves the awareness and ability to

define a logical relationship between one’s internal knowledge structures and new

information. Such awareness requires skill in metacognition. This process may be

characterized as integrative and evaluative, requiring iterative, process oriented

assessment of new information and its relationship to existing knowledge structures. A

novice and an expert can perceive the same information need, yet the expert’s approach


to inquiry will be qualitatively different from the novice’s due to a different knowledge

base.

Metacognition is critical in developing strategy to meet information needs and resolve

conflicts, problems, or issues in a meaningful way. Grafstein’s skill set is a limited,

specific, safe, reductionist repertoire that may apply to an instructor’s assigned question,

or a clear, uncomplicated situation in life. However, if faced with a complicated problem

or constellation of information needs, such reductionism will not be effective. Effective

information literacy requires metacognition or the purposeful evaluation of “the quality

of one’s own thinking” (APA, 2002). Self-monitoring shapes how one is defining

uncertainties, teasing out questions or hypotheses, developing strategy, critically

evaluating varied solutions, and using information to resolve uncertainties as they relate

to one’s knowledge structures or base. Grafstein’s approach, however practical, falls

short of fostering this critical thinking – central in understanding how one learns how to

learn, a core value in information literacy and lifelong learning.


References

(AAMC). Medical school objectives project: medical infomatics objectives. Retrieved January 12, 2006, from http://www.health.ufl.edu/iaims/planning/tf/education/informat.pdf

(AAMC). (1998). Physicians must be dutiful. Report I: Learning Objectives for Medical School Education - Guidelines for Medical Schools.

(AAMC). (1998,1998). Report II: Contemporary issues in medicine: medical informatics and population health. Retrieved January 12, 2006, from http://www.aamc.org/meded/msop/msop2.pdf

AAAS. Chapter 12: Habits of mind. In Science for all Americans.

AAAS. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy: project 2061 (1st ed. ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.

ACRL. (2000, October 21, 2005). Information literacy in the disciplines: medicine. Retrieved January 12, 2006, from http://www.ala.org/ala/acrlbucket/is/projectsacrl/infolitdisciplines/medicine.htm

ACRL. (2002). ACRL information literacy.

ACRL, & Committee. (2000, October 21, 2005). Information literacy in the disciplines. Retrieved January 12, 2006, from http://www.ala.org/ala/acrlbucket/is/projectsacrl/infolitdisciplines/index.htm

Al Khalifa, R. (2007). Poorest States benefit least from globalization’s advantages. Paper presented at the United Nations General Assembly 61st Session, New York.

Al Khalifa, R. (2007). United Nations Ministerial Conference of the least developed countries "Making Globalization Work for LDCs". Paper presented at the UN General Assembly 61st Session, Istanbul.

Allen, F. (2004). A nonlinear model of information-seeking behavior. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 55(3), 228-237.

Allen, L. (1999). Info 520: Professional and Social Aspects of Information Services. Drexel University Course: Information Literacy in Higher Education, 1-9.

Andrews, J., Johnson, D., Case, D. O., Allard, S., & Kelly, K. (2005). Intention to seek information on cancer genetics [Electronic Version]. Information Research, 10 from [Available at http://InformationR.net/ir/10-4/paper238.html].

APA. (2006). APA Guidelines for the undergraduate Psychology major. Washington,


D.C.: American Psychological Association.

Arnold, J., Kackley, R., & Fortune, S. (2003). Hands-on learning for freshman Engineering Students. Issues in Science and Technology Librarianship, 1-7.

Aronson-Rath, R. (Writer) (2007). News war: secrets, sources, and spin. In A. L. R. P. Frontline, Inc and UC Berkeley Graduate School of Journalism (Producer), News War: secrets, sources, and spin. USA: Frontline.

Baldwin, V. (2004). The work and goals of the STS task force on information literacy for science and technology. Lincoln: University of Nebraska.

Baldwin, V., Hanson, E., Lawal, I., MacAlpine, B., Nesdill, D., Wong, C. C. J. W., et al. (2004). Information literacy in the sciences task force.

Bawden, D. (2002). The three worlds of health information. Journal of Information Science, 28(1), 51-62.

Beauregard, K. S., & Dunning, D. (1998). Turning up the contrast: Self-enhancement motives prompt egocentric contrast effects in social judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(3), 606-621.

Belkin, N. J. (1980). Anomalous States of Knowledge as a Basis for Information-Retrieval. Canadian Journal of Information Science-Revue Canadienne Des Sciences De L Information, 5(MAY), 133-143.

Benson, D. A., Karsch-Mizrachi, I., Lipman, D. J., Ostell, J., & Wheeler, D. L. (2007). GenBank. Nucl. Acids Res., 35(suppl_1), D21-25.

Breivik, P. (1991). Information literacy. Paper presented at the Ninetieth Meeting of the American Medical Association, Detroit, Michigan.

Breivik, P. (1999). Take II -- Information literacy: revolution in education. Reference Services Review, 27(3), 271-275.

Brown, C. (1999). Information Literacy of Physical Science Graduate Students in the Information Age. College and Research Libraries, 426-438.

Bruce, C., Edwards, S., & Lupton, M. (2006). Six frames for information literacy education. Italics, 5(1).

Bush, V. (1945). As we may think. The Atlantic Monthy.

Campbell, S. (2004). Defining information literacy in the 21st century. Paper presented at the World Library and Information Conference: 70th IFLA General Conference and Council, Buenos Aires, Argentina.


Carey, R., McKechnie, L., & MacKenzie, P. (2001). Gaining access to everyday life

information seeking. Library and Information Science Research, 23, 319 - 334.

Carol, L. B. (1994). User-defined relevance criteria: An exploratory study. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 45(3), 149-159.

Cline, R. J. W., & Haynes, K. M. (2001). Consumer health information seeking on the Internet: the state of the art. Health Educ. Res., 16(6), 671-692.

Cohen, M. (2003). "Aristotle's Metaphysics", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

Retrieved March 3, 2006, from http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2003/entries/aristotle-metaphysics/.

Connor, E., ed. (2005). A guide to developing end user educational programs in medical

libraries. New York: Haworth. Crane, D. (1972). Invisible colleges: diffusion of knowledge in scientific communities.

Chicago: University of Chicago Press. D'Alessandro, D. M., Kingsley, P., & Johnson-West, J. (2001). The Readability of

Pediatric Patient Education Materials on the World Wide Web. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med, 155(7), 807-812.

Dean, C. (2005, August 30, 2005). Scientific Literacy? In U.S., Not Much. The New York

Times. Delamothe, T. (2000). Quality of websites: kitemarking the west wind. BMJ, 321(7265),

843-844. Diamond, J. (1999). Best invention; invention is the mother of necessity. New York

Times. Dickson, D. (2005). The case for a 'deficit model' of science communication. Science and

Development Network. Doyle, C. (1994). Information literacy in an information society: a concept for the

information age: ERIC Clearinghouse on Information and Technology, Syracuse University.

Eisenstein, E. (1979). The printing press as an agent of change. Cambridge, U.K.:

Cambridge University Press. Epley, N., & Dunning, D. (2000). Feeling "holier than thou": Are self-serving

assessments produced by errors in self- or social prediction? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(6), 861-875.


Feynman, R. (1966). What is science? Paper presented at the National Science Teachers

Association, New York. Fjallbrant, N., & Levy, P. (1999). Information literacy course in engineering and science:

the design and implementation of the DEDICATE courses (Report). Chania, Greece: EU Fourth Framework Telematics for Libraries Program.

Florance, V., & Guise, N. (2002). Information in context: integrating specialists into

practice settings. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 90(1), 49-58. Forrest, M., & Robb, M. (2000). The information needs of doctors-in-training: case study

from the Cairns Library, University of Oxford. Health Libraries Review, 17(3), 129-135.

Foster, A. (2004). A non-linear model of information seeking behavior. Journal of the

American Society for Information Science and Technology, 55(3), 228-237. Freeman, J. (2005). Towards a definition of holism. British Journal of General Practice,

55(511), 154-155. Fuchs, S. (1993). A sociological theory of scientific change. Social Forces, 71(4), 993 -

953. Gannon, J. (2000). The CIA in the new world order: Intelligence challenges through 2015

Retrieved. from https://www.cia.gov/news-information/speeches-testimony/2000/dci_speech_020200smithson.html.

Garvey, W. & Griffith, B. (1972). Communication and information processing within scientific disciplines - empirical findings for psychology. Information Storage and Retrieval, 8(3).

Grafstein, A. (2002). A discipline-based approach to information literacy. The Journal of

Academic Librarianship, 28(4), 197-204. Greely, H. T. (1998). Legal, ethical, and social issues in human genome research. Annual

Review of Anthropology, 27(1), 473-502. Gross, M. (2001). Imposed information seeking in public libraries and school library

media centres: a common behaviour? Information Research, 6(2). Gutierrez, K., & Rogoff, B. (2003). Cultural ways of learning: Individual traits or

repertoires of practice? Educational Researcher, 32(6), 19 -25. Haga, S., & Willard, H. (2006). Defining the spectrum of genome policy. Nature, 7, 966 -

972.


Hardesty, L. (1999). Reflections on 25 years of library instruction: have we made

progress? Reference Services Review, 27(3), 242-246. Hazen, R. M., & Trefil, J. (1992). Science matters: achieving scientific literacy. New

York: Anchor. HGP. (2007). Human Genome Project Information. Retrieved. from

http://genomics.energy.gov/. HHS. (2005). Improving health literacy [Electronic Version] from

http://www.nih.gov/icd/od/ocpl/resources/improvinghealthliteracy.htm#healthliteracy.

Hillestad, R., Bigelow, J., Bower, A., Girosi, F., Meili, R., Scoville, R., et al. (2005). Can

Electronic Medical Record Systems Transform Health Care? Potential Health Benefits, Savings, And Costs. Health Aff, 24(5), 1103-1117.

Hinman, R. (1998). Who is scientifically literate, anyway? (measures of scientific

literacy). Phi Delta Kappan, 79(7), 540(544). Hodson, D. (2002). Some thoughts on scientific literacy: motives, meanings, and

curriculum implications. Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, 3(1).

Hodson, D. (2005). What is scientific literacy and why do we need it? The Morning

Watch: Educational and Social Analysis, 33(1-2). Hunter, J. (2007). Health Telematics Unit. 2007, from

http://www.fp.ucalgary.ca/telehealth/ Hurd, J. (2000). Transformation of scientific communication: A model for 2020 Journal

of the American Society for Information Science, 51(14), 1279 - 1283. IFLANET. (2006). Guidelines for professional library information educational programs

- 2000. Retrieved January 12, 2006, from http://www.ifla.org/VII/s23/bulletin/guidelines.htm

Inarritu, A. (2006). Babel: A Film by Alejandro Gonzolez Inarritu. NY: Taschen. IOM. (1999). Healthy people 2010. Washington, D.C.: National Academy of Medicine. ITU. (2007). World Information Society Report: Beyond WSIS Paper presented at the

United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, Geneva. Jaworski, A., & Stephens, D. (1998). Self-reports on silence as a face-saving strategy by


people with hearing impairment. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 8(1), 61-80.

John, L. R. (2005). Inquiry, instrumentalism, and the public understanding of science.

Science Education, 89(5), 803-821. Johnson, D. (2003). On contexts of information seeking. Information Processing and

Management, 39, 735 - 760. Julie, M. H. (2000). The transformation of scientific communication: A model for 2020.

Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 51(14), 1279-1283. Keene, S. (1998). Digital collections: Museums and the information age (2nd ed.).

Oxford: Butterworth Heineman. Keltner, D., & Anderson, C. (2000). Saving Face for Darwin: The Functions and Uses of

Embarrassment. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9(6), 187-192. Kickbusch, I. S. (2001). Health literacy: addressing the health and education divide.

Health Promot. Int., 16(3), 289-297. Kruger, J., & Dunning, D. (1999). Unskilled and unaware of it: How difficulties in

recognizing one's own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(6), 1121-1134.

Kyung-Sun Kim, B. A. (2002). Cognitive and task influences on Web searching

behavior. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 53(2), 109-119.

Laherty, J. (2000). Promoting Information Literacy for Science Education Programs:

Correlating the National Science Education Content Standards with the National Association of College and Research Information Competency Standards for Higher Education. Issues in Science and Technology Librarianship(Fall).

Leckie, G., & Fullerton, A. (1999). Information literacy in science and engineering

undergraduate education: faculty practices and pedagogical practices. College and Research Libraries.

Leckie, G., Pettigrew, K. (1996). Modeling the information seeking of professionals: a

general model derived from research on engineers, health care workers, and lawyers. Library Quarterly, 66(2), 161-193.

Lederman, L. (2003). Epilogue: obstacles on the road to universal science literacy. In S.

Marshall (Ed.), Science literacy in the twenty-first century (pp. 305-310). NY: Prometheus.


Lederman, N. (2003). Scientific inquiry and nature of science as a meaningful context for learning in science. In S. Marshall (Ed.), Science literacy for the twenty-first century. NY: Prometheus.

Lee, A. (2004). Thinking about social theory and philosophy for information systems. In

L. Willcocks & J. Mingers (Eds.), Social theory and philosophy for information systems (pp. 1 - 26). Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons.

Lindstrom, J., & Shonrock, D. (2006). Faculty-Librarian collaboration to achieve

integration of information literacy. Reference and User Services Quarterly, 46(1). Lipscomb, C. (2001). The library as laboratory. Bulletin of the Medical Library

Association, 89(1), 79-80. Lloyd, A. (2005). Information literacy: Different contexts, different concepts, different

truths? Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 37(2), 82-88. MacKenzie, P. (2002). A model of information practices in accounts of everyday-life

information seeking Journal of Documentation 59(1), 19 - 40. Maienschein, J., & Students. (1998). Scientific literacy. Science Magazine, 281(5379),

917. Marshall, S., Scheppler, J., & Palmisano, M. J. (2003). Science literacy for the twenty-

first century. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books. McCulley, C., & Hare, J. (2005). Science literacy: a collaborative approach. Academic

Exchange Quarterly 9(12), 205-213. McDonald, J., & Dominguez, L. (2005). Moving from content knowledge to engagement.

Journal of College Science Teaching, 35(3), 18-23. Miller, J. (1998). The measurement of civic scientific literacy. Public Understanding of

Science, 7, 203-223. NCES. (1999). Trends in international mathematics and science study: IES. NCES. (2003). National assessment of adult literacy. Newman, M. E. J. (2001). From the Cover: The structure of scientific collaboration

networks. PNAS, 98(2), 404-409. NRC. (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington, D.C.: National

Academy Press. NYSED. (2003). States' Impact on Federal Education Policy Project [Electronic Version].


New York State Archives from http://www.sifepp.nysed.gov/edindex.shtml. Osborne, H. (2005). Health literacy from A to Z: practical ways to communicate your

health message. Sudbury, MA: Jones & Bartlett. Owusu-Ansah, E. K. (2003). Information literacy and the academic library: a critical look

at a concept and the controversies surrounding it. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 29(4), 219-230.

Owusu-Ansah, E. K. (2005). Debating definitions of information literacy: enough is

enough! Library Review, 54(6), 366-374. Oxnam, M. (2003). The informed engineer. Paul, S. (2002). Discovering information in context. Annual Review of Information

Science and Technology, 36(1), 229-264. Peterson, C., & Kajiwara, S. (1999). Scientific literacy skills for non-science librarians:

bootstrap training. Issues in Science and Technology Librarianship. Popli, R. (1999). Scientific literacy for all citizens: different concepts and contents.

Public Understanding of Science, 8(2), 123-138. Reichman, J., & Uhlir, P. (2001). Promoting public good uses of scientific data: A

contractually reconstructed commons for science and innovation. Paper presented at the Conference on the Public Domain, Duke Univerisity. Durham, North Carolina.

Rowen, L., Wong, G. K. S., Lane, R. P., & Hood, L. (2000). Intellectual property:

Publication rights in the era of open data release policies. Science, 289(5486), 1881-.

Ruth A. Palmquist, K.-S. K. (2000). Cognitive style and on-line database search

experience as predictors of Web search performance. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 51(6), 558-566.

Sackett, D. L., Rosenberg, W. M. C., Gray, J. A. M., Haynes, R. B., & Richardson, W. S. (1996). Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn't. BMJ, 312(7023), 71-72.

Schwartzberg, J., VanGeest, J., & Wang, C. (Eds.). (2005). Understanding health

literacy: implications for medicine and public health. Washington, D.C.: AMA. Shukla, S. (2007). How to write a scientific paper. Indian Journal of Surgery 69(2), 1.


Smith, E. M. (2003 ). Developing an Information skills curriculum for the sciences. Issues in Science and Technology Librarianship(Spring).

Souchek, R., & Meirer, M. (1997). Teaching information literacy and scientific process

skills: an integrated approach. (Science and Math). College Teaching, 45(4), 128-132.

Sundin, O. (2000). Brief Communication. Qualitative research in health information user

studies— a methodological comment. Health Libraries Review, 17(4), 215-218.

Susan Siegfried, M. J. B. D. N. W. (1993). A profile of end-user searching behavior by

humanities scholars: The Getty Online Searching Project Report No. 2. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 44(5), 273-291.

Taemin Kim, P. (1994). Toward a theory of user-based relevance: A call for a new

paradigm of inquiry. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 45(3), 135-141.

Tang, H., & Ng, J. H. K. (2006). Googling for a diagnosis--use of Google as a diagnostic

aid: internet based study. BMJ, bmj.39003.640567.AE. Toffler, A. (1970). Future shock. New York: Bantam. Trefil, J. (1996). The myth of scientific literacy. Issues in Science and Technology, 12(3),

84-89. UNCTAD. (2006). Promoting the building of a people-centred, development-oriented,

and inclusive information society, with a view to enhancing the digital opportunities for all people. Retrieved. from http://www.unctad.org/Templates/Meeting.asp?intItemID=2068&lang=1&m=12233&year=2006&month=1.

Van Boven, L., Dunning, D., & Loewenstein, G. (2000). Egocentric empathy gaps

between owners and buyers: Misperceptions of the endowment effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(1), 66-76.

Walther, J. H., & Speisser, N. (1997). Developing and delivering medical reference

source instruction in a special library. Issues in Science and Technology Librarianship (Fall).

Webber, S., & Johnston, B. (2000). Conceptions of information literacy: new

perspectives and implications. Journal of Information Science, 26(6), 381-397. WHO. (1996;2003). Health promotion: an anthology (Vol. 557). Washington, D.C.: Pan

American Health Organization.


Wikipedia. (2006). Richard Saul Wurman: Wikipedia, The Free Encylopedia. Williamson, D., Katz, I., & Kirsch, D. (2002). An overview of the Higher Education ICT

Literacy Assessment. Princeton: Educational Testing Service. Wilson, T. D. (2000). Human Information Behavior. Informing Science, 3(2), 1-7. Wilson, T. D. (2003). Models in information behaviour research. Journal of

Documentation, 55(3), 249 - 270. Wilson, T. D. (2006). On user studies and information needs. Journal of Documentation,

6, 658 - 670. Wood, F., Ford, N., Miller, D., Sobczyk, G., & Duffin, R. (1996). Information skills,

searching behaviour and cognitive styles for student-centred learning: a computer-assisted learning approach. Journal of Information Science, 22(2), 79-92.

Wudka, J. (1998). The Scientific Method: University of California, Riverside. Wurman, R. (1989). Information Anxiety. New York: Doubleday. Zarcadoolas, C., Pleasant, A., & Greer, D. S. (2005). Understanding health literacy: an

expanded model. Health Promot. Int., 20(2), 195-203.

Documents

Information Literacy -- Context, Culture and Information Seeking