Rannsóknir í félagsvísindum XVI. Erindi flutt á ráðstefnu í október 2015

ISBN: 978-9935-424-19-8

Information literacy instruction

Theory and practice

Þórdís T. Þórarinsdóttir and Ágústa Pálsdóttir

Ritstjórar:

Helga Ólafs og Thamar M. Heijstra

Félags- og mannvísindadeild

1

Information literacy instruction

Theory and practice

Þórdís T. Þórarinsdóttir and Ágústa Pálsdóttir

In the ever changing world of the present time students in schools and the general

public as well need to be equipped with skills to be able to cope with the challenges of

the rapid innovations in technology and communication and the rising globalization,

because "new technological developments continue to alter the parameters of work,

leisure, family life and citizenship" (Moscow Declaration, 2012) and solid education

and science seem to be the main foundations of economic progress.

It is widely recognized, that information literacy (IL) – the ability to identify infor-

mation need, seek, locate, critically evaluate and use information (Alexandria Pro-

clamation, 2005, Prague Declaration, 2003) in an ethical manner – is among the

cornerstones in education and underpins informed active participation in the informa-

tion and knowledge society. In 2012 with the release of the Moscow Declaration on

Media and Information Literacy (MIL) the new media was more clearly integrated into the

official definitions of information literacy (Moscow Declaration, 2012).

Iceland does neither have a formal national policy on information literacy nor is in-

formation literacy strongly represented in the legislation for the upper secondary

school or in the National curriculum guidelines for the secondary school (Thórarinsdóttir &

Pálsdóttir, 2014). Therefore it is interesting to study the emphasis scholars and other

nations place on information literacy for that school level and its instruction as well as

the teaching methods and ideology used. Among others, the Big6TM program (Eisen-

berg & Berkowitz, 2000) is under consideration.

The purpose of the paper is to present and discuss theory of information literacy

instruction and its implementation and the transfer into practice. Furthermore, best

practices in the field are brought in and introduced. The methods used are a literature

overview and content analysis. The objective of the study is to see if there is a dif-

ference between Iceland and other countries concerning the emphasis placed on in-

formation literacy and to draw conclusions from the findings.

Theory of information literacy instruction

Theories in information literacy instruction are intertwined with learning theories

since acquiring information literacy competencies is a learning process. Information

literacy, which requires critical thinking, is based on functional literacy and for

example on computer literacy, digital literacy, media literacy, web literacy, information

handling and information skills, visual literacy, civic literacy and critical literacy (see

also SCOUNUL, 2011; Sturges & Gastinger; 2010). Several scholars have put forward

differentiations of the facets of information literacy and tried to take the process apart

for clarification, because information literacy is a multidimensional concept embedded

in a social and cultural context. Social constructivism is today seen as the main theo-

retical base for information literacy. Todd (2000, p. 168) states “that new knowledge

and meaningful learning results when a person consciously and explicitly ties new

knowledge to relevant concepts and propositions already possessed”. Several models

have been introduced on information literacy theories, learning and training in order

2

to clarify the concept and its facets. There are two main approaches for media and in-

formation literacy instruction, either as stand-alone courses or embedded in subject

courses. Today information literacy is increasingly seen as ”a social practice deter-

mined by culture and the context in which it is set“ (Abdallah, 2013, 96) and the ten-

dency is to integrate media and information literacy into subject courses (Virkus,

2013).

Transfer of information literacy into practice

As mentioned above several information literacy models have been developed and

introduced for teaching and reinforcing the information searching and information

using processes. The three following models of the research process are considered

prominent ones (Brand-Gruvel, Wopereis & Walraven, 2009; Wolf, 2003). Kulthau

presented her ISP model of the Information Search Process first in 1985; Stripling and

Pitts put forward their thinking frame model in 1988 and Eisenberg and Berkowitz

introduced in 1988 their Big6 program and learning model, here under consideration.

Since then some other models based on information literacy have been designed, for

example the Seven faces of information literacy model (Bruce, 1997), Horton´s (2008)

Information literacy model and The seven pillars of information skills model (SCONUL, 2011).

These models are well recognized and worth mentioning, however, it is outside the

scope of this paper to introduce them (see Þórdís T. Þórarinsdóttir & Ágústa

Pálsdóttir, 2011).

Kuhlthau´s ISP Model

One of the first of models of information literacy is Kulthau´s ISP model. Kuhlthau

(1985a, 1987, 1993 & 2004) developed the following six-stage model of the informa-

tion search process (ISP), in other words Kuhlthau´s ISP-model. She also researched

and identified the feelings students are likely to experience along with strategies as well

as their thoughts and actions that can lead them through a productive search. The

model describes the information search process from the perspective of the user and

is “derived from an intensive study of a group of high school seniors” (Kuhlthau,

2004, p. 51). In her research Kuhlthau also developed a principle of uncertainty, where

“uncertainty due to lack of understanding, or limited construction initiates the process

of information seeking” (Kuhlthau, 2004, 92). The full model shows also how users

approach the research process and how their confidence increases as they proceed.

1. Task initiation – uncertainty

2. Topic selection – optimism

3. Pre-focus exploration – confusion/frustration/doubt

4. Focus formation – clarity

5. Information collection – sense of direction/confidence

6. Search closure/presentation – satisfaction or disappointment

Assessing the process was included as a separate stage (Kuhlthau (1985b). Later Kuhl-

thau (2004) incorporated some aspects of assessment in the sixth stage. Kuhlthau sees

assessment as a time of reflection after the search process has been completed and the

assignment accomplished; reflecting about what had taken place increased the

students’ self-awareness of the different stages in the process.

Together with her daughters Mainotes and Caspari Kuhlthau developed a new

approach, the concept of learning through Guided Inquiry (Kuhlthau, Mainotes &

Caspari, 2007) to meet the challenge of the 21st century to educate students for living

3

and working in an extremely information-rich technological environment. An

instructional team (teachers and school librarians) “gradually leads students toward

independent learning” where the “ultimate goal is to develop independent learners

who know how to expand their knowledge and expertise through skilled use of variety

of information sources employed both inside and outside the school” (p. 3). Moreover

“the content of the curriculum is connected to the student´s world through thoughtful

planning and adaptability” (Kuhlthau et al., 2007, 3).

Kuhlthau (1987) points out that using a timeline to describe the search process

helps students to understand the time and effort involved in an extensive search and

to plan the work accordingly. She also states that information gathering and use are

not linear, “but rather complicated processes in which questions are continually

changing and evolving as new information is collected and thought about” (Kuhlthau,

1987, p. 8). In developing her ISP-model Kuhlthau was influenced by Kelly´s personal

construct theory which "focuses on the structure and function of how humans

construe their experiences" (Reynolds, 2013, p. 68).

Bruce (1997) and Kuhlthau et al. (2007) place emphasis on making sense of

information and its transformation into knowledge. Limberg´s findings (2000) show

that learners’ interaction between information seeking and use are not independent of

the content of the information used, in other words learners/students do not think

about information seeking as separate element from the subject content of an assign-

ment.

Stripling and Pitts thinking frame model

The model designed by Stripling and Pitts (1988) is a ten steps process, where a

thinking framework is emphasized. The model can be adapted to any age level and

curricular subject. The ten steps are as follows:

1. Choosing a broad topic.

2. Getting an overview.

3. Narrowing down the topic.

4. Developing a thesis or statement of purpose.

5. Formulating questions to guide research.

6. Planning research.

7. Finding – analyzing and evaluating – information.

8. Evaluating evidence, taking notes, compile bibliography.

9. Establishing conclusions.

10. Creating and presenting the final product.

The model guides students through the stages of creating a research paper.

Throughout the model are built-in reflection points, which provide reevaluation of the

steps: „each step of the process includes study and thinking skills as well as teaching

and learning strategies“ and furthermore „at critical points in the process, reflection

points direct students to evaluate the work they have just completed“ (Stripling &

Pitts, 1988, 20).

The Big6™ program and learning model

Eisenberg and Berkowitz created the Big6™ program and learning model. They first

introduced the Big6 (then Big Six) in their book Curriculum initiative. An agenda and

strategy for library media programs, published 1988. The intention of Eisenberg and

Berkowitz was to create “an effective tool for helping students learn the research

process as an inquiry process” (Huges, 2003, 28). In 1990 Eisenberg and Berkowitz

pursued the model further in the book Information problem solving. The Big Six

skills approach to library & information skills instruction. Since then they have refined

4

the Big6 model and approach and added more conceptual depth and a wide range of

practical tools for the program (Eisenberg, 2014). Eisenberg and Berkowitz also run

an active website, (www.big6.com) where the users can for example get various

support materials like hand-outs, presentations, video and guides. The Big6 is one of

the most widely-known and widely-used approach to teach information and

technology skills at all school levels (Basli, 2011; Eisenberg, 2014; Huges, 2003;

Murray, 2008). The Big6 is an information and technology literacy model and

curriculum, implemented in many schools, in primary and higher education as well as

in corporate and adult training. It is sometimes called the Big6 an information

problem-solving strategy, because with the Big6, the learners are considered to be able

to handle any problem, assignment, decision or task (Eisenberg & Berkowitz, 1990,

Eisenberg, 2001; Lau, 2007).

According to the Big6 Information & Technology Skills for Student Achievement

Program information problem-solving is described in terms of the following six two

part steps. The two sub-stages are part of each main category in the Big6™ model,

where the individual stages are defined more exactly.

1. Task definition: Define the problem & identify information requirements.

2. Information seeking strategies: Determine range of sources & prioritize them.

3. Location and access: Locate sources then find information within the sources.

4. Use of information: Engage (read, view etc.) & extract relevant information.

5. Synthesis: Organize information from multiple sources & present information.

6. Evaluation: Judge the process (efficiency) & judge the product (effectiveness).

The learners go through the different stages, when they seek or apply information to solve a

problem or make a decision. It is not necessary to complete the stages in linear order.

But it is an approach that clarifies the problem at hand. The figure below shows

clearly the adaptability and flexibility of the Big6 program: information-problem solv-

ing is not always a linear step by step process: “the stages do not need to be com-

pleted in any particular order or in any set amount of time” (Eisenberg, 2008, 42).

Figure 1. The Big6 as a feedback process (Eisenberg, 2008, 42)

5

The Big6 model is intended to foster the acquisition of both school library media

specialists and classroom teachers (Wolf, 2003). It focuses on the process as well as

the content and is applicable to all subject areas of the curriculum: “The Big6 skills are

best learned when integrated with classroom curriculum and activities” (Eisenberg

2001). Various computer and information technology skills are integral parts of the

Big6 skills. The program can also be used to prevent plagiarism (Story-Huffmann,

n.d.); it can be addressed in step 4; Use of information. It is generally recognized that

informative guidelines are among the best preventions of misconducting in scientific

writings. Grgié (2014) states that “knowing how to avoid plagiarism and all the other

misconducts in science is part of information literacy”.

Further one important feature of the Big6 is the emphasis on self-awareness or

metacognition. Metacognition is “described as thinking about thinking” (Wolf, 2003).

According to Wolf more specific definitions include references to knowledge and

control of factors that affect learning, like “knowledge of the self, the task at hand and

the strategies to be employed” (2003, 4). The learner must be aware of his/hers own

cognitive activities and be able to control and monitor the activities in order to per-

form metacognitively (Wolf, 2003). The Big6 can also serve as metacognitive

scaffolding, which contributes to transferability of learning. Scaffolding is defined as

“a support structure for learners engaged in activities just beyond their independent

abilities” (Wolf, 2003, 5).

Library user education has been criticized for being more focused on “telling

people about information sources and specific electronic tools” (Streatfield, Allen &

Wilson, 2010) rather than being experimental and constructing learning experiences.

Therefore it is desirable to expand library education and make it collaborative and

include the components of information and media literacy and active interaction with

the tasks at hand, for example in problem based learning, Guided Inquiry and in the

Big6 as well.

Teaching Information Literacy

Today information technology affects everyone. Most businesses and organizations

focus on meaningful uses of information technology and hire employees who are able

to apply technology in an effective way. It is undoubtedly one of the responsibilities of

the educational system to develop students who are not only technologically literate

but also information literate. The students must learn how to use technology to solve

information problems (Eisenberg, Lowe and Spitzer, 2004; Þórdís T. Þórarinsdóttir &

Ágústa Pálsdóttir, 2011). In the Prague Declaration, it is stated that information

literacy should “be an integral part of Education of All, which can contribute critically

to the achievement of the United Nations Millennium Development Goals and

respect for the Universal Declaration of Human Rights” (2003).

Familiarity with computers is becoming a prerequisite for most jobs and schools

must prepare the students for the future by teaching the use of computers but com-

petence with technology must be set within the context of information literacy. Being

able to use computers is not enough. One has to be able to apply computer skills to

real situations and real needs and must be able to identify information problems and

locate, use, synthesize and evaluate information in relation to the problems at hand.

According to Eisenberg, Lowe and Spitzer (2004) there are the two following main

pedagogical approaches or models for teaching technology which are included in in-

formation literacy:

a) Technology as an object of instruction (skills out of context approach), where com-

puter science is considered as part of the curriculum for all students.

6

b) Using technology as a tool in preparing assignments (skills in context approach),

where computer science is considered to be an inherent part of each subject.

Rather than teaching individual skills out of context as in the technology as the object

of instruction approach, the technology as an integral tool model emphasizes the use

of technology in context to accomplish goals and solve problems at hand, for example

an assignment for a school subject, like geography or history, where information and

media literacy is also included.

The process/skills in the context approach is becoming more widely supported as

being consistent with current pedagogy and theories of learning and preparing

students for lifelong learning. The focus is on learning with technology rather than

learning about technology. The same applies for teaching information literacy; it is

more effective to teach it in context than out of context (Eisenberg et al., 2004) and

the embedded instruction described above seems also to apply to information literacy,

in other words to integrate it in the different subjects as the Big6 program assumes

rather than to teach it in standalone courses.

As early as in 1987 Kuhlthau argues for integrating information skills into the

curriculum. Emphasis is placed on teaching “the information skills required to use

resources effectively in the context of classroom learning, not as isolated library skills

lessons” (Kuhlthau 1987, 12). The constructivist approach in information literacy

instruction with emphasis on building on prior knowledge seems to be more fruitful.

According to Limberg, Alexandersson, Lantz-Andersson & Folkesson, (2008) there is

strong research evidence that information literacy skills are best developed within the

learner´s (researcher´s) subject context. Eisenberg, Johnson & Berkowitz (2010) chime

in with this view.

Information literacy instruction seems thus to be best served in cooperation and

interaction between the students on the one hand and educators (subject teachers and

information professionals) on the other hand, dealing with meaningful tasks and

projects, which are credit-bearing and a part of the curriculum in a given subject.

Information literacy instruction programs

Information literacy instruction programs can consist of various methods (Cameron,

2004; Catts, 2000; Grassian & Kaplowitz, 2001):

1. Standalone information literacy instruction.

2. Discipline-specific or course-related information literacy instruction.

3. Self-paced workbooks to be completed within a given time.

4. Online tutorials.

5. Individual assistance.

All the models described above (Kulthau´s ISP Model, Stripling and Pitts thinking

frame model and the Big6) are mainly designed for course related information literacy

instruction. The models emphasize further the transferability of the skills acquired by

using the models systematically in learning situations of each subject. Using the Big6

makes technology skills meaningful in subject settings. Crawford (2006) evaluated and

compared several information literacy models including the Big6 which was chosen as

the best one; for example because of its applicability, its user-friendly approach for

teachers, students and parents, its extensive resources available, including lessons.

Bruce (2002) sees information literacy as a catalyst for educational change. It em-

powers the learners and gives them the capacity to engage in self-directed lifelong

learning, since it brings real life experiences of information use into the classroom.

Bruce (2002) also brings the following keys facilitating the adoption of information

literacy education:

7

Cultural change, change in educational values.

Establishing policy and guidelines.

Teacher education – staff development.

Partnership between key personnel

Bruce (2002) states that all of the five foregoing areas are required to bring about

change. The Icelandic upper secondary schools are now preparing new school

curriculums for that educational level which gives the schools a good opportunity to

bring about educational change and include information literacy explicitly in the

school practice.

Information literacy and best practice

In a white paper with the title Information literacy as a catalyst for educational change pre-

pared for UNESCO among others Bruce (2002) interprets best practice for informa-

tion literacy as those approaches which,

1. interpret information literacy as integral to the learning process

2. bring learner centered, experimental and reflective approaches to the informa-

tion literacy education process

3. bring collaborative approaches to program implementation

4. establish partnerships within and between organizations.

Each of the best practices is supported by arguments gained by research outcomes

(Bruce, 2002). The Big6 program described above seems to meet the requirements put

forward by Bruce.

Information literacy around the world

In many countries information literacy has been purposely integrated into the national

curricula. Task force committees have been established and special groups have been

engaged to pave the way for information literacy in the school system (Þórdís T.

Þórarinsdóttir, 2010). An International state of the art report (Lau, 2007) reveals that the

strongest promotion of information literacy seems to be, besides the United States, in

Australia and New Zealand, Canada, the United Kingdom and Ireland and South

Africa. Further the Netherlands can be mentioned. Of the Nordic Countries the most

intensive activities appear to be in Finland and Sweden. There is no mentioning of

Iceland. Bruce (2002) also mentions Singapore. It would be interesting to examine if

countries that place emphasis on information literacy score higher on the PISA test.

It has been discussed if information literacy improves academic achievement. As

early as 1995 Todd identified that in Australian schools students that possessed

information literacy skills scored better on assessment criteria in exams. Limberg

(1998) got similar research outcomes concerning Swedish students.

Bruce (2002, 11) points out that “international, national and institutional guidelines

and policies can direct and support adoption of information literacy education”.

Willer and Eisenberg (2014) state that a wide variety of authorities have called for in-

formation literacy to be incorporated into educational standards, both in the United

States and in Europe, since it is important that students have solid grounding in

information problem-solving, in other words in the application of information skills.

Many components of information literacy standards relate directly to the steps of

the Big6 (Story-Huffman, 2008). Willer and Eisenberg (2014) conducted a research on

8

mapping American educational standards to the Big6 and found out that the first step,

Task definition, which they consider the most important phase of problem-solving,

and step six, Evaluation, were the two least represented steps in the American stan-

dards under consideration and recommended to reform the standards in accordance

with the research outcome.

Information literacy in Iceland

In 1995 information literacy (upplýsingalæsi) was for the first time mentioned in

Icelandic. Relatively little has been published on the subject in the country (Þórdís T.

Þórarinsdóttir, 2010). A formal national information literacy policy or standards have

not yet been developed. In latter editions of the information policy of the Icelandic

Government not much emphasis is placed on information literacy; the main focus is

on information technology. In the current legislation for the secondary school media

and information literacy is not explicitly considered. Contray to many other countries

little emphasis is placed on information literacy in the general national curriculum

guidelines (Aðalnámskrá) and that is in accordance with the little emphasis on the

subject in the information governmental policy papers. A positive development can be

observed in the latest edition of the national curriculum guidelines for the elementary

school. Hopefully comparable progress for the secondary school will follow

(Thórarinsdóttir & Pálsdóttir, 2014; Þórdís T. Þórarinsdóttir, 2010). A study

conducted in 2014 among library directors in upper secondary schools (n=33) with a

response rate of 87.9% revealed that information literacy is not strongly represented

within Icelandic educational legislation and policy papers. The survey revealed that

information literacy is not very often included in the learning outcomes of course

descriptions and 48.1% of the respondents claimed that not at all enough emphasis is

placed on information literacy in the schools. This corresponds to its weak and

unsystematic representation in the legislation and other government policy documents

(Thórarinsdóttir & Pálsdóttir, 2014).

Conclusions

The objective of this study was to show if there is a difference between Iceland and

other countries concerning the emphasis placed on information literacy and to draw

conclusions from the findings. The observation revealed that many international,

national and institutional standards have been developed on information literacy, but

Iceland does neither have a formal national policy on information literacy nor is infor-

mation literacy strongly represented in the legislation for the upper secondary level or

in the National curriculum guidelines for the secondary school (Aðalnámskrá, 2011). This is in

accordance with the latter editions of the information policy of the Icelandic Govern-

ment where not much emphasis is placed on libraries and information literacy (Thór-

arinsdóttir & Pálsdóttir, 2014; Þórdís T. Þórarinsdóttir, 2010).

The information literacy models introduced emphasize that information literacy

education is connected to the content of the curriculum, in other words to the dif-

ferent subjects. The emphasis is on implementing a meaningful information literacy

program in context. The Big6 model appears to be the most accessible of the models

under consideration. The strengths of Big6 is its flexibility, that it encourages

metacognitive activities in the student, that it supports transferability among subjects

and information problem-solving situations; further can the program be adapted and

applied to all school levels, ergo also for the upper secondary level in Iceland.

Eisenberg strongly advocates for a collaborative approach to information literacy

9

instruction that “classroom teachers, librarians, technology teachers and other educa-

tors can work together” and design curriculum and lessons where information skills

and classroom content is integrated (Eisenberg, 2008, 45). It would be desirable to

develop Icelandic information literacy standards for all school levels and introduce the

use of the Big6 with the goal to develop independent learners and citizens.

It is appropriate to close with the following words of Eisenberg: “Information

literacy is fundamental and essential. There is nothing more important or basic to

learning and living than information literacy” (Eisenberg, 2014, 10).

References

Aðalnámskrá framhaldsskóla. Almennur hluti. (2011). Reykjavík: Mennta- og menningar-málaráðuneytið. Retrieved from https://gagnryninhugsun.hi.is/wp-content/ uploads/adalnskr_frsk_alm_2011.pdf

Abdallah, N. B. (2013). Activity framework for understanding information literacy. In S. Kurbanoğlu, E. Grassian, D. Mizrachi, R. Catts & S. Špiranec (editors), Worldwide commonalities and challenges in information literacy research and practice (pp. 93-99), European conference on information literacy, ECIL 2013. Istanbul, October 22–25, 2013. Proceedings. (Communications in computer and information science, 492). Heidelberg: Springer.

The Alexandria Proclamation on information literacy and lifelong learning. Beacons of the information society. (2005, November 9). Retrieved from http://archive.ifla.org/III/wsis/Bea conInfSoc.html

Basili, C. (2011). Report on current state and best practices in information literacy. [S.l.]: S.n.] Retrieved from http://www.researchgate.net/publication/259334208_Report_on_ Current_State_and_Best_Practices_in_Information_Literacy

Brand-Gruwel, S., Wopereis, I. & Walraven, A. (2009). A descriptive model of in-formation problem solving while using internet. Computer & Education, 53, 1207-1217.

Bruce, C. S. (1997). The seven faces of information literacy. Adelaide: Auslib Press. Bruce, C. S. (2002, July). Information literacy as a catalyst for educational change: A background

paper. White paper prepared for UNESCO, the U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science, and the National Forum on Information Literacy, for use at the Information Literacy Meeting of Experts, Prague, The Czech Republic. Retrieved from http://nclis.gov/infolitconf&meet/papers/bruce- fullpaper.pdf

Cameron, L. (2004). Assessing information literacy. In I. F. Rockman and Associates (editors), Integrating information literacy into the higher education curriculum: Practical models for transformation (pp. 207-236). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Catts, R. (2000). Some issues in assessing information literacy. In C. Bruce & P. Candy (editors) Information literacy around the world: advances in programs and research (pp. 271-283) Wagga Wagga: Centre for Information Studies.

Crawford, J. (2006). Information literacy process models. An evaluation and comparison. [S.l.]: [S.n.]

Eisenberg, M. B. (2001, November). Big6™. Skills overview. Retrieved from http://www.big6.com

Eisenberg, M. (2008). Information literacy: Essential skills for the information age. Journal of Library & Information Technology, 28, 2: 39-47.

Eisenberg, M. (2014). Lessons learned from a lifetime of work in information literacy. In S. Kurbanoğlu, S. Špiranec, E. Grassian, D. Mizrachi & R. Catts (editors) Information literacy, lifelong learning and digital citizenship in the 21st century (pp. 1-12). Second European conference on information literacy, ECIL 2014. Dubrovnik, Croatia, October 20–23, 2014. Proceedings. (Communications in computer and information science, 492). Heidelberg: Springer.

10

Eisenberg, M. B. & Berkowitz, R. E. (1988). Curriculum initiative. An agenda and strategy for library media programs. Greenwich, CT: Ablex.

Eisenberg, M. B. & Berkowitz, R. E. (1990). Information problem solving. The Big Six skills approach for library information skills instruction. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Eisenberg, M. B. & Berkowitz, R. E. with Darrow, R. & Spitzer, K. L. (2000). Teaching information & technology skills: The Big6TM in secondary schools. Worthington, Ohio: Linworth Publishing.

Eisenberg, M., Johnson, D. & Berkowitz, B. (2010). Information, communications, and technology. (ICT) skills. Curriculum based on the Big6 skills approach to information problem-solving. Revised edition. Library Media Connection, May/June, 24-27.

Eisenberg, M., Lowe, C. A., & Spitzer, K. L. (2004). Information literacy: Essential skills for the information age (2nd edition). Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited.

Grassian, E. S. & Kaplowitz, J. (2001). Information literacy instruction. Theory and practice. New York: Neal-Schuman.

Grgié, I. H. (2014). IL and information ethics: How to avoid plagiarism in scientific papers? In S. Kurbanoğlu, S. Špiranec, E. Grassian, D. Mizrachi & R. Catts (editors), Information literacy, lifelong learning and digital citizenship in the 21st Century (pp. 218-226). Second European conference on information literacy, ECIL 2014. Dubrovnik, Croatia, October 20–23, 2014. Proceedings. (Communications in computer and information science, 492). Heidelberg: Springer.

Horton, F. W. (2008). Understanding information literacy. A primer. Paris: UNESCO. (UNESCO Information for All Programme - IFAP).

Huges, S. (2003). The Big6 as a strategy for student research. School libraries in Canada, 22(4), 28-29.

Kuhlthau, C. C. (1985a). A process approach to library skills instruction. School Library Media Quarterly, 13(1), 35-40.

Kuhlthau, C. C. (1985b). Teaching the library research process. West Nyack, NY: Center for Applied Research in Education (2nd edition, 1994, Scarecrow Press).

Kuhlthau, C. C. (1987). Information skills for an information society: A review of research. Syracuse: Syracuse University.

Kuhlthau, C. C. (1993). A principle of uncertainty for information seeking. Journal of Documentation, 49(4), 339-355.

Kuhlthau, C. C. (2004). Seeking meaning. A process approach to library and information services (2nd edition). Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited.

Kuhlthau, C. C., Mainotes, L. K. & Caspari, A. K. (2007). Guided inquiry: Learning in the 21st century. New York: Libraries Unlimited.

Lau, J. (coordinator). (2007, May). Information literacy: An international state-of-the art report (2nd draft). Retrieved from http://www.infolitglobal.info

Limberg, L. (1998). Att söka information för at lära. Borås: Valfrid. Limberg, L. (2000). Is there a relationship between information seeking and learning

outcomes? In C. Bruce & P. Candy (editors), Information literacy around the world: advances in programs and research (pp. 193-207). Wagga Wagga: Centre for Information Studies.

Limberg, L., Alexandersson, M., Lantz-Andersson, A. & Folkesson, L. (2008). What matters? Shaping meaningful learning through teaching information literacy. Libri, 58(2), 82-91.

The Moscow Declaration on Media and Information Literacy. (2012). Moscow: Unesco, IFLA. Retrieved from http://www.unesco.org/new/fileadmin/MULTIMEDIA/HQ/CI /CI/pdf/In_Focus/Mos cow_Declaration_on_MIL_eng.pdf

Murray, J. (2008, April/May) Looking at ICT literacy standards through the Big6 lens. Library Media Connection, 38-42.

The Prague Declaration. Towards an information literate society. (2003). Retrieved from http://www.unesco.org/new/fileadmin/MULTIMEDIA/HQ/CI/CI/pdf/PragueDeclaration.pdf

11

Reynolds, R. (2013). Personal construct theory. In Theory in information behaviour research (pp. 68–82). [S.l.]: Eiconics Limited at Smashwords. Retrieved from https://www. smashwords.com/books/view/336724

SCONUL (Society of College, National and University Libraries). (2011, April). The SCONUL Seven pillars of information literacy. Core model for higher education. Prepared by the SCONUL Working group on information literacy, on behalf of SCONUL. Retrieved from http://www.sconul.ac.uk/groups/information_literacy/seven_ pillars.html

Story-Huffmann, R. (n.d.). Using the Big6 to prevent plagiarism. Retrieved from http://big6.com/pages/lessons/articles/using-the-big6-to-prevent-plagiarism.php

Story-Huffmann, R. (2008). The Big6 goes to college. Georgia international conference on information literacy, Oct. 3. Paper 25. Retrieved from http://digitalcommons. georgiasouthern.edu/gaintlit/2008/2008/25

Streatfield, D., Allen, D. & Wilson, T. D. (2010). Information literacy training for postgraduate and postdoctoral researchers: a national survey and its implications. Libri, 60(3), 230-240

Stripling, B. & Pitts, J. (1988). Brainstorms and blueprints: Teaching research as a thinking process. Engelwood, CO: Libraries Unlimited.

Sturges, P. & Gastinger, A. (2010). Information literacy as a human right. Libri, 60(September), 195-207.

Thórarinsdóttir, Th. T. & Pálsdóttir, Á. (2014). Upstairs – Downstairs. Representation of information and media literacy in Icelandic educational legislation, policy docu-ments and curricula of upper secondary schools. In S. Kurbanoğlu, S. Špiranec, E. Grassian, D. Mizrachi & R. Catts (editors), Information literacy, lifelong learning and digital citizenship in the 21st century (pp. 200-209). Second European conference on information literacy, ECIL 2014 Dubrovnik, Croatia, October 20–23, 2014. Proceedings. (Communications in computer and information science, 492). Heidelberg: Springer.

Todd, R. J. (2000). Theory of information literacy: Information and outward looking. In: C. Bruce & P. Candy (editors), Information literacy around the world: Advances in programs and research (pp. 163-175). Wagga Wagga: Centre for information studies.

Todd, R. J. (1995). Integrated information skills instruction; does it make a difference? School Library Media Quarterly, 23(2), 133-139.

Virkus, S. (2013). Information literacy in Europe: Ten years later. In S. Kurbanoğlu, E. Grassian, D. Mizrachi, R. Catts & S. Špiranec (editors), Worldwide commonalities and challenges in information literacy research and practice (pp. 250-257), European conference on information literacy, ECIL 2013. Istanbul, October 22–25, 2013. Proceedings. (Communications in computer and information science, 492). Heidelberg: Springer.

Willer, D. & Eisenberg, M. B. (2014). Mapping educational standards to the Big6. In S. Kurbanoğlu, S. Špiranec, E. Grassian, D. Mizrachi & R. Catts (editors), Information literacy, lifelong learning and digital citizenship in the 21st century (pp. 82-90). Second European conference on information literacy, ECIL 2014. Dubrovnik, Croatia, October 20–23, 2014. Proceedings. (Communications in computer and information science, 492). Heidelberg: Springer.

Wolf, S. (2003). The Big Six information skills as a metacognitive scaffold: A case study. School Library Media Research, 6, 1-24.

Þórdís T. Þórarinsdóttir. (2010). Information literacy. Core competency for the 21st century. In: Gunnar Þór Jóhannesson & Helga Björnsdóttir (editors), Þjóðar-spegillinn. Rannsóknir í félagsvísindum XI. Félags- og mannvísindadeild (pp. 342-354). Reykjavík: Félagsvísindastofnun Háskóla Íslands. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/1946/6697

Þórdís T. Þórarinsdóttir & Ágústa Pálsdóttir. (2011). Information Literacy. Learning theories and assessment. In Ása Guðný Ásgeirsdóttir, Helga Björnsdóttir & Helga Ólafs (editors), Þjóðarspegillinn. Rannsóknir í félagsvísindum XI. Félags- og mannvísinda-deild (pp. 630-639). Reykjavík: Félagsvísindastofnun Háskóla Íslands Retrieved

12

from http://skemman.is/en/stream/get/1946/10261/ 25581/3/ Felags ogmannv_deild.pdf