3.1. Information literacy scope
3.1.2. Information literacy models and frameworks
According to Hughes, Bruce, and Edwards (2007), models play a very important role in IB/information use/IL fields, because they show the complex nature of information and how people engage with it. In practice, various IL learning and teaching models have been generated (Shenton & Pickard, 2014) and they are utilised in numerous institutions across the world. Price et al. (2011) point out that researchers and organisations increasingly tend to develop IL models with specific outcomes rather than simply defining what IL is. The study reviews here the most prevalent IL models. This section starts with the Big6 (Eisenberg & Berkowitz, 1990), the AASL standards (AASL, 2007), and the Media and Information Literacy Curriculum (MIL) (UNESCO, 2011b), which mainly focus on school
35
settings. This is followed by IL frameworks and models that are primarily developed for HE, such as ACRL’s model/framework (ACRL, 2000, 2015), the Australian & New Zealand Institute for Information Literacy framework (ANZIIL) (Bundy, 2004), Seven Pillars of Information Literacy (SCONUL, 2011), Bruce’s IL models (Bruce, 1997b; Bruce & Edwards, 2007), A New Curriculum for Information Literacy (ANCIL) (Secker & Coonan, 2011) and Radical Information Literacy (Whitworth, 2014b).
3.1.2.1. The Big6
Michael B. Eisenberg and Robert E. Berkowitz introduced the Big6 in 1990. It provides a methodical tactic to information problem-solving (Eisenberg & Berkowitz, 1990). This model is considered a strategy that helps individuals satisfy their own information needs effectively and efficiently (Eisenberg & Berkowitz, 1990). This model is intended for kindergarten through twelfth-grade students and has been widely applied in schools in the US.
The Big6 model is broken down into six steps with two sub-levels per step (see Appendix 1, Section 1 for further details). The six steps are organised as follows:
1. Task definition: the strategy starts with a precise understanding of the conditions of the problem for which information is required.
2. Information-seeking strategies: the second step is identifying the range of possible information sources that are available to solve the problem or task.
3. Location and access: the third step is the implementation of the selected information-seeking strategies with the aim of obtaining the desired information resources to meet the defined task and then getting to appropriate information. 4. Use of information: the fourth step is interacting with the information which has
been selected.
5. Synthesis: the fifth step is presenting the information in an appropriate format to meet the requirements of the task.
6. Evaluation: the final step is the evaluation of the completion of the task with regards to how effectively and efficiently the task was carried out.
36
Eisenberg and Berkowitz (1990) indicate that the Big6 is at variance with models that concentrate on the research process in that it can be applied to any information problem or decision-making situation. Furthermore, this model does not require students to do things in the same way. In other words, students do not need to follow an undeviating or step-by- step process. The idea of incorporating training into a school’s programme is stressed as the preferred approach in this model rather than providing instructions as a separate course (Seaman, 2001). This model affords a more rational and consecutive method to information seeking and utilisation (Andretta, 2007). Nonetheless, the ethical and collaborative elements are not mentioned in this model (Walton, 2009).
3.1.2.2. Standards for the 21st-Century Learner
AASL and the Association for Educational Communications and Technology (AECT) introduced the Nine Information Literacy Standards for Student Learning to deliver a frame and instructions for assessing the K-12 students’ IL level (AASL & AECT, 1998). This model has been widely used in many states in the US at different educational levels (S. Chu, 2012). It contains three main categories (including IL, independent learning and social responsibility), nine standards and 29 indicators with a range of outcomes associated with the services delivered by school library media programmes (see Appendix 1, Section 2 for further details). The standards and indicators are presented at a general level; therefore, they can be adjusted to satisfy the specific goals of institutions. Under the first category, named IL, three components: accessing, evaluating and using information, are emphasised to define an information literate individual. According to S. Chu (2012), cognitive, meta-cognitive, affective and socio-cultural dimensions are involved in the model.
In 2007, the Standards for the 21st-Century Learner (AASL, 2007) was developed to suit
the changing information environment. This model is known as a new set of standards which is based on the Nine Information Literacy Standards for Student Learning (AASL & AECT, 1998). However, the new AASL model does not aim to replace the old one. The AASL model is based on nine common beliefs which put emphasis on issues surrounding reading, inquiry, ethical behaviour, technology skills, equitable access, learning and school libraries.
37
• Inquire, think critically and gain knowledge
• Draw conclusions, make informed decisions, apply knowledge to new situations and create new knowledge
• Share knowledge and participate ethically and productively as members of our democratic society
• Pursue personal and aesthetic growth
(AASL, 2007, p. 3) Each standard is then divided into four sub-sections: skills, dispositions in action, responsibilities and self-assessment strategies; and there are indicators under each sub- section (AASL, 2007) (see Appendix 1, Section 3 for further details).
Similar to the old model, the new AASL standards still give emphasis to the importance of IL in student learning and attempt to augment the significance of library media programmes (Needham, 2010). The standards are based on elements which are considered the foundation of learning, such as reading, inquiry and technology (Arnone & Reynolds, 2009; Mardis & Dickinson, 2009). This model also makes an attempt to incorporate cognitive processes and affective elements (Farmer, 2013). AASL’s model designates learning goals which students need to achieve, but does not provide a straightforward structure to follow. In other words, it does not show specific methods to reach the standards (Farmer, 2013).
3.1.2.3. Media and information literacy curriculum
In 2011, UNESCO introduced a MIL curriculum for teachers in order to encourage the development of information and media societies. The curriculum brings together media literacy and IL to provide a holistic approach to literacy (UNESCO, 2011b). It would “support teachers in the development of critical questions and approaches related to the design, implementation and evaluation of media and information literacy programs for secondary students” (C. Wilson, 2012, p. 16). The curriculum is developed based on three key themes:
− Knowledge and understanding of media and information for democratic discourses and social participation.
38
− Production and use of media and information.
These are linked with six key areas of general education and teacher development: policy and vision, curriculum and assessment, media and information, organisation and administration, pedagogy, and teacher professional development (UNESCO, 2011b, p. 23). The curriculum contains nine core modules and five non-core modules. The modules concentrate on areas, such as new and traditional media, representation, media languages, audience, news media and information ethics, advertising, and IL and library skills. Learning objectives, pedagogical approaches, sample activities for working with secondary students, and assessment recommendations are provided under each module.
The curriculum has been translated into 12 languages for use (States News Service, 2016); and it is also being applied in the formal national teacher education in several countries, for example, Morocco and Brazil (States News Service, 2013).
The highlight of this curriculum is it allows educators and practitioners to adapt easily to the local context of their countries because of its flexibility (C. Wilson, 2012). It can also be equally applied in both print and audiovisual environment (UNESCO, 2011b).
The focus of the curriculum is teachers as it is developed based on the perspective that “teachers are the gateway to literate societies” (UNESCO, 2017). Teachers are considered facilitators who help students become media and information literate. It is therefore mainly offered for teacher education in MIL (C. Wilson, 2012).
3.1.2.4. Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education
One of the IL models that is widely used by HE institutions is "Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education" (M. Gross & Latham, 2007), released in 2000 by ACRL16. ACRL’s standards extend the Information Literacy Standards for Student Learning - the standards and guidelines describe capabilities for K-12 students produced by AASL and AECT (1988) to provide continuity in learning to students at all levels (ACRL, 2000; Foo et al., 2014). According to ACRL (2000), information literate individuals have the capability of:
16 ACRL is a unit of ALA.
39
• Determining the extent of information needed;
• Accessing the needed information effectively and efficiently; • Evaluating information and its sources critically;
• Incorporating selected information into their knowledge base; • Using information effectively to accomplish a specific purpose;
• Understanding the economic, legal and social issues surrounding the use of information, and accessing and using information ethically and legally.
(ACRL, 2000, pp. 2-3) This model includes five standards, 22 performance indicators and the expected results (see Appendix 1, Section 4 for further details). They are utilised to offer assistance to the development of methods, instruments and approaches for evaluating students’ learning outcomes in HE.
Five standards are presented as follows:
• Standard One: the information literate student determines the nature and extent of
the information needed.
• Standard Two: the information literate student accesses needed information
effectively and efficiently.
• Standard Three: the information literate student evaluates information and its
sources critically and incorporates selected information into his or her knowledge base and value system.
• Standard Four: the information literate student, individually or as a member of a
group, uses information effectively to accomplish a specific purpose.
• Standard Five: the information literate student understands many of the economic,
legal and social issues surrounding the use of information and accesses and uses information ethically and legally.
(ACRL, 2000) In this model, skills are described from simple to more complex. Specifically, for simple skills, individuals are expected to be able to identify their information needs and know how to find information to satisfy them. The more complicated skills involve evaluating information effectively (Lau, 2008). The fundamental cognitive learning results concerning
40
finding, evaluating, using and citing information are also encapsulated in ACRL’s standards (Association of College and Research Libraries Standards Review Task Force, 2012).
According to Virkus (2003), this ‘skills-based’ and ‘measurable’ model is not proposed by some researchers, but it is considered a good start when providing goals and showing ways to assess students’ IL level. Therefore, it is still being used by many institutions to assess students’ IL (Neely & Ferguson, 2006). Also, it is still being translated to several languages for use, such as German, French, Greek and Spanish (Neely, 2006b). Furthermore, many libraries and educational institutions have developed new IL standards based on ACRL’s model and apply it to their institutions’ IL programmes (Lindauer, Arp, & Woodard, 2004; M. Gross & Latham, 2007; Burkhardt, 2016). For instance, the ACRL model is the foundation for the development of the Australian and New Zealand Information Literacy Framework (ANZIIL)17 (Foo et al., 2014). However, the ACRL model does not suggest any methods that can be used to measure the outcomes (Knight, 2006).
It is more than ten years since the model was introduced in 2000. Today, the information environment changes, specifically the Internet, affects the manner in which individuals generate, analyse and authenticate information. It was suggested that ACRL’s IL model should be revised to reflect these transformations (Banks, 2013). The Association of College and Research Libraries Standards Review Task Force also confirms that the model “should not be reapproved as they exist but should be extensively revised” (Association of College and Research Libraries Standards Review Task Force, 2012, p. 1). In addition, the model must be revised to meet the AASL standards (AASL, 2007), which provide an updated understanding of IL, because one of the preliminary purposes of the original ACRL standards was to offer a range of expectations for students moving from K-12 to HE (Association of College and Research Libraries Standards Review Task Force, 2012). Based on the new AASL standards (AASL, 2007), the ACRL model needs modification to help students develop the information capabilities that they have achieved in high schools (Farmer, 2013).
41
Consequently, ACRL updated their IL standards. A Delphi study was conducted by the Association of College and Research Libraries Standards Review Task Force to develop a new model named “Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education” (ACRL, 2015). The new ACRL framework is based on the threshold concept which is considered a gateway to a broader understanding of thinking methods and practices in a discipline (ACRL, 2015) (see Appendix 1, Section 5 for further details). The six threshold concepts are:
• Authority is constructed and contextual • Information creation as a process • Information has value
• Research as inquiry
• Scholarship as conversation
• Searching as strategic exploration (ACRL, 2015, p. 2)
It can be seen that the framework does not show performance indicators and the expected outcomes as did the original standards. Additionally, it does not give instructors information relating to how to apply the framework into their classroom. For that reason, instructors need to establish learning outcomes grounded on the frames, knowledge practices and dispositions which match the specific goals of their institutions (Burkhardt, 2016). The framework also stresses the idea of integrating IL into students’ academic programme through the collaboration of librarians, faculties and administrators (ACRL, 2015; Burkhardt, 2016).
According to ACRL (2015), the new framework has solved some limitations of the existing model, such as moving beyond a limited understanding of the conception of IL which applies the skills-based approach, and emphasising on collaborative elements, students’ contributions and other aspects of critical thinking (e.g., attitudes, emotions, dispositions), not only cognitive elements. At the same time, a set of dispositions under each frame in the new framework is considered the continuous development in learning from K-12 to HE (ACRL, 2015).
42
3.1.2.5. Australian & New Zealand Institute for Information Literacy Framework
The ANZIIL model was generated in 2001 by the Council of Australian Librarians (CAUL) based on the ACRL model (ACRL, 2000) and then updated in 2003 (Bundy, 2004; Andretta, 2005). The model extends the original ACRL model (ACRL, 2000) by adding an extra standard (Andretta, 2005) (see Appendix 1, Section 6 for further details). Similar to other IL models, for example, the Big6, the ANZIIL model indicates that becoming information literate cannot follow a linear approach and it is recommended to integrate teaching IL into the curriculum (Bundy, 2004). As with many other existing IL models, a set of IL skills, including finding, evaluating and using information, is also mentioned in the model.
The ANZIIL model is based on the following principles which indicate that information literate individuals:
• engage in independent learning through constructing new meaning, understanding and knowledge
• derive satisfaction and personal fulfilment from using information wisely
• individually and collectively search for and use information for decision-making and problem-solving in order to address personal, professional and societal issues • demonstrate social responsibility through a commitment to lifelong learning and
community participation (Bundy, 2004, p. 11)
Based on the above principles, the ANZIIL model was generated with six standards:
• Standard 1: the information literate person recognises the need for information and determines the nature and extent of the information needed
• Standard 2: the information literate person finds needed information effectively and efficiently
• Standard 3: the information literate person critically evaluates information and the information seeking process
• Standard 4: the information literate person manages information collected or generated
• Standard 5: the information literate person applies prior and new information to construct new concepts or create new understandings
43
• Standard 6: the information literate person uses information with understanding and acknowledges the cultural, ethical, economic, legal and social issues surrounding the use of information (Bundy, 2004, p. 11)
The model has been used by many institutions, for example, Australian National University, Canberra, Bond University, Central Queensland University and Curtin University of Technology.
The model has several strong points. Ease of application is one of the model’s strengths, because it is produced with measurable learning outcomes and examples (Andretta, 2005). Knowledge-construction is also applied in the model in order to describe the learning process that underpins IL education (Andretta, 2005). Additionally, it emphasises the importance of “critical discernment and reasoning” (Bundy, 2004, p. 4). This can be seen in standard 3: “the information literate person critically evaluates information and the information seeking process” (Bundy, 2004, p. 11). The ANZIIL standards can be implemented at different levels, such as institution, programme and student (Andretta, 2005).
Like all other IL models, the ANZIIL model does not indicate how to deal with failing the information gathering process. In addition, cognitive elements are not mentioned in the model. Also, according to Peacock (2004), it does not clearly specify how to implement IL instructions effectively.
3.1.2.6. Seven Pillars of Information Literacy model
In 2011, SCONUL updated, expanded and released a new version of the Seven Pillars of Information Literacy model (SCONUL, 2011) to substitute the old one which was introduced in 1999 (SCONUL, 1999). The model is organised into seven pillars: identify, scope, plan, gather, evaluate, manage and present. A set of competencies, attitudes and behaviours which is considered the key of IL development in HE is included under each pillar (SCONUL, 2011) (see Appendix 1, Section 7 for further details). The model is presented in the figure below.
44
Figure 1. The Seven Pillars Model Source: SCONUL (2011, p. 4)
Similar to the ACRL model (ACRL, 2000) and the ANZIIL model (Bundy, 2004), the SCONUL model also involves standards that concentrate on personal characteristics, ranging from basic skills (e.g. identify) to the more complex (e.g. evaluate) (Johnston & Webber, 2003). Like the Big6, it indicates that learners can develop IL skills independently rather than following a step-by-step or linear process (SCONUL, 2011). A highlight of this model is flexibility in adapting the core skills of IL to different contexts and learner groups (Association of College and Research Libraries Standards Review Task Force, 2012; Dalton, 2013). In particular, this model is presented as a ‘three-dimensional circular’ model for HE and offers a wide range of ‘lenses’, for instance, research lens and digital literacy lens (Association of College and Research Libraries Standards Review Task Force, 2012), to help different groups of learners apply it in an appropriate way (SCONUL, 2011). This is also seen as an advantage of the new version over the old one (Bent & Stubbings, 2011). A number of libraries have developed new IL standards based on the SCONUL model as well as applying it into their institutions’ IL programmes.
However, similar to the ACRL model (ACRL, 2000) and the ANZIIL model (Bundy, 2004), the SCONUL model does not provide any suggestions or guidelines regarding how it should be delivered. In other words, the model indicates the competencies which are needed to become information literate, but does not show how to achieve them.
45
3.1.2.7. The Relational model of information literacy
Bruce developed an IL model entitled ‘The seven faces of information literacy’ following a study of users’ experiences of information use (Bruce, 1997b). The model consists of seven ways of experiencing information, ranging from “information technology conception” to “wisdom conception” (see Appendix 1, Section 8 for further details), as follows:
Category one: the IT conception
IL is seen as using IT for retrieval and communication. Category two: the information sources conception
IL is seen as finding information located in information sources Category three: the information process conception
IL is seen as executing a process
Category four: the information control conception IL is seen as controlling information
Category five: the knowledge construction conception
IL is seen as building up a personal knowledge base in a new area of