Information Literacy Instruction: Selecting an Effective Model

(AzLA).

Introduction

In their 1989 Final Report, the ALA’s Presidential Committee on Information Literacy called information literacy a ‘survival skill.’ This is even more true two decades later as technology has changed library participants’ knowledge acquisition behavior. Participants now acquire their information from the Internet and information literacy is essential when using the Internet as a research tool. Library participants are acquiring knowledge from a medium in which anyone can write anything they want, true or false, anonymously and without consequences. This method of acquisition is threatening the epistemological protection librarians have long been providing. There is a variety of successful methods available for information literacy instruction: as Grassian and Kaplowitz claim, a ‘smorgasbord groaning with an array of choices.’ (Grassian and Kaplowitz, 2001). Choosing from the extensive menu can be work intensive and time consuming. There are so many factors to consider when choosing a method, topics, contact times, and delivery modes available. These elements can be blended in any number of ways, making a decision even more challenging. Then there are the tangible and intangible factors to consider: audience, purpose (what is the objective of the program), cost, time, staff, equipment, software, facilities, materials, preparation time, stakeholder impact, participants’ availability (Grassian and Kaplowitz, 2009) – all of this before considering the effectiveness of the method. Being without information literacy skills can be serious and the consequences can affect quality of life. Full participation in this information rich society requires a high level of information literacy (Gross and Latham, 2007). Librarians are the leaders in the movement for an information literate society and should be effective in providing instruction that teaches these skills. There is no one proven method that is considered most effective for ILI; the existing methods are effective in different environments and situations. This book provides practical advice to librarians and others who want to select an effective information literacy instructional method for their ILI program.

References

Association of Research and College Libraries (1989) Presidential Committee on Information Literacy: Final Report. Available at http://www.ala.org/ala/mgrps/divs/acrl/publications/whitepapers/presidential.cfm#importance.

Grassian, E., Kaplowitz, J. Information Literacy Instruction: Theory and Practice, second edition. New York, NY: Neal-Schuman; 2001.

Gross, M., Latham, D. Attaining information literacy: An investigation of the relationship between skill level, self-estimates of skill, and library anxiety. Library and Information Science Research. 2007; 29:332–353.

Meyer, K.R., Hunt, S.K., Hopper, K.M., Thakkar, K.V., Tsoubakopoulos, V. and Van Hoose, K.J. Assessing Information Literacy Instruction in the Basic Communication Course, Communication Teacher, 22(1): 22–34.

1

Methods of instruction

Abstract:

This chapter provides a brief summary of what information literacy instruction (ILI) is and what it has become in most academic libraries, describing the evolution of ILI from its conception in academic library education to the marketing tool it has developed into over the years. The chapter also defines the many forms available in academic libraries today. It outlines the different modes of instruction including traditional lecture/demonstration, active learning, computer-assisted, learner-centered and self-directed.

Key words

information literacy instruction

instructional methods

marketing

traditional instruction (TI)

active learning instruction (AL)

collaborative learning

problem-based learning (PBL)

computer assisted instruction (CAI)

learner-centered instruction (LCI)

self-directed

independent learning (SDIL)

What is information literacy instruction?

To describe the different methods of information literacy instruction first requires a definition of what it is. This chapter does not attempt to define information literacy yet again; there is already more than enough delineation of the term. With so many definitions for information literacy, it is amazing that anyone is able to apply it to instruction. Despite Owusu-Ansah’s plea for an end to the search (Owusu-Ansah, 2004) for a definition, the debate continues. Librarians have been attempting to re-clarify the definition since the ALA produced its adequate and clear demarcation of the concept in 1989. The ALA described information literacy as a participant skill set that included recognizing an information need and locating, evaluating and using the needed information effectively (American Library Association Presidential Committee on Information Literacy, 1989). This simple set of skills has been re-conceptualized and so elaborated upon that it is hardly recognizable.

There have been many efforts to clarify the ALA’s definition, adding pedagogical and conceptual advancements. Christina Doyle presented specific attributes requiring certain competencies and attached them to the process of finding, evaluating, and using information (Doyle, 1992). Carol Kuhlthau believed information literacy is a learning process and incorporated the skill set into six stages of an instructional model (1993). Christine Bruce developed a relational model presenting seven different experiences a participant encounters through information literacy (Bruce, 1997). Then there are the granddaddies of all definitions, the offerings from the Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL) and the American Association of School Librarians (AASL). These organizations created standards from the skill set, and added performance indicators and behavioral outcomes to develop an all inclusive definition. All of these definitional efforts have established the basis for what an information literate person is, though there has been limited expansion on the find-evaluate-use principles the ALA presented in their 1989 Final Report.

There has been enough debate on defining information literacy. Owusu-Ansah was right when proclaiming ‘enough is enough’ (Owusu-Ansah, 2005) when referring to the accumulated literature defining information literacy. All the above mentioned proponents have clarified what information literacy is and what skills an information literate person should possess. Efforts should now focus on how to effectively implement this knowledge into methods of instruction to promote information literacy. Literacy by nature is a continuum, changing as an individual’s goals change. Grassian and Kaplowitz claimed there is no standard definition for the term: they believe that information literacy means different things to different people and can vary from situation to situation (Grassian and Kaplowitz, 2001). This is true and highlights the importance of choosing an effective method of instruction, depending on the participant and the place. The participants’ ideas of being information literate are a major consideration in defining information literacy and the ideas change over time and environment. So there will be no new definition or re-conceptualization trotted out here. For the premise of this book the ALA’s original simple skill set will suffice: information literacy is defined as finding, evaluating, and using information effectively; and information literacy instruction (ILI) is teaching these skills depending on who is being taught and where the instruction takes