2.1.1 What’s in a name?

Since its early days in the 1970s, the concept of information literacy and its definition has been widely discussed. As recently as during the last few European Conference on Information Literacy (ECIL) conferences, the definition of IL was a recurrent topic. The question of which definition to use has caused some to claim that the definition in itself has become more of a focus than the actual content of the concept (Owusu-Ansah, 2005). That even librarians still debate what IL actually is, is probably a result of the discipline being fairly new, and is clearly a contributing factor to the slight confusion surrounding the term among the rest of academia and the teaching world.

In our view, information literacy translates to the ability to use available information to accommodate your information needs in the best possible manner. This includes knowing where to find relevant information, evaluating its relevance and quality, and using it to suit your purpose, for instance creating new knowledge or enhancing your own or others’ understanding of something. The American Library Association defines IL as a skill or an ability to “recognize when information is needed and have the ability to locate, evaluate, and use effectively the needed information” (American Library Association, 1989). This has become the leading definition of IL and is still frequently referred to.

Similar, but more detailed, is the definition from the Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL) web site which, in addition to the ALA skills, also adds “Understand the economic, legal, and social issues surrounding the use of information, and access and use information ethically and legally” (American Library Association, 2006).

In 2015 the Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education from the ACRL defines information literacy as “the set of integrated abilities encompassing the reflective discovery of information, the understanding of how information is produced and valued, and the use of information in creating new knowledge and participating ethically in communities of learning” (American Library Association, 2015).

IL has to a large extent been embraced by librarians, and the teaching of it has been taken up as a key library service, especially by libraries connected to educational institutions, but also public libraries have seen IL as a part of their mission. There is a fairly uniform agreement among librarians that the teaching and promotion of IL is an important service in today’s information society. There is a lot of variation in how different libraries implement their IL teaching services, with some focusing more on search and/or referencing skills, while others for instance take a broader perspective and concentrate on academic integrity in general.

As an example of the growth of information literacy, there are now several conferences dedicated exclusively to this topic, in both Europe and the rest of the world.¹ Similarly, the amount of literature published on IL has increased steadily the last decade, as Fig. 2.1 illustrates.

The ALA definition, and several other definitions, all capture some of the essence of IL. One way to improve the definition, however, could be to more clearly state the connection between learning and information skills. The underlying aim of all IL teaching is to enhance learning in some way or other. In this, we concur with the view of Bruce et al. who write that “The notion of learning lies at the heart of information literacy” (Bruce, Hughes, & Somerville, 2012, p. 524). This must be in the forefront of any IL teacher’s mind when planning their classes.

Sometimes the functional or practical elements of information literacy takes the focus away from the core of the matter, which in our view is asking why we need to know how to search for quality literature and how to cite the literature we use correctly. The most important purpose of these skills is to improve our learning and formation process, and even if this is in a way already embedded in existing IL definitions, making it more explicit could be helpful, to both teachers, librarians and students. We teach information literacy to help students learn more and learn better and thus get more out of their education. Simultaneously, IL helps students being acquainted with the core values of academia, so they can identify themselves as taking part in the greater enterprise of the production of new knowledge.

2.1.2 Information literacy and its cousin metaliteracy

For us as IL teachers, it is useful to bear in mind that there are many perceptions of what information literacy is. A decade or two ago, it was not uncommon for IL to be confused with ICT (Information and Communications Technology) skills. In recent years, other literacies have appeared on the educational horizon. Librarians and educators are now talking about transliteracy, digital literacy, metaliteracy, and media literacy, to mention some of the most frequently used terms.

This branching out from information literacy to other literacies is a healthy development, and a sign that IL as a discipline is maturing. Some of these other literacies are seen as sub-elements of IL, whereas others work as further developments of IL, as argued by Mackey and Jacobson (2011) in relation to metaliteracy.

Mackey and Jacobson’s discussion of metaliteracy is interesting because of its focus on metacognition. Asking students to “think about their own thinking” and their own learning is an essential perspective in modern information literacy and in learning in general (Jacobson & Mackey, 2013). Acquiring good and useful learning strategies depends on an active reflection on personal learning in higher education. See Chapter 4, Learning Strategies, for a more thorough discussion of this.

We think these other literacies are useful for an updated definition of IL. We do not, however, believe it necessary to use another term than information literacy. Rather than speculating about which term will be best in order to teach students how to search, read, write and learn, we instead advocate having a clear notion of the philosophy behind our IL teaching. In other words, to make sure we have a clear idea about what we want students to achieve from attending an IL class.

2.1.3 The one definition to rule them all?

With the development in both technology and education the last decade in mind, it is still relevant to ask: What do we mean when we talk about information literacy? Is it time to redefine or expand the concept, or is the American Library Association definition still sufficient? According to Jacobson and Mackey the “information environment has altered so dramatically in the last decade that earlier attempts to codify what it means to be information literate are no longer sufficient” (Jacobson & Mackey, 2013, p. 85).

What is clear to us is the importance of using a broad and generic definition of information literacy to make room for emerging trends in teaching and technology. Some still believe technology is the key element of IL. The digital environment, however, changes faster than anything else in our society. A heavy focus on technological skills therefore seems futile when the tools we learn to use today will be obsolete or replaced in a handful of years.

In our opinion the key element of IL is not how to use technology, but rather, an understanding of how to use information in the best possible way in any given situation. This includes for example being able to connect new information to previous knowledge to learn something, creating new solutions based on available information, or producing new knowledge based on a variety of information sources.

Another point is that focusing on rules and the how-to-do-aspects somehow draws attention away from what is perhaps the very essence of information literacy. Learning how to cite an article or a book seems like a very reasonable task for students. Teaching students what an academic article is and how to read it with a researcher’s mind, on the other hand, is far more challenging, but arguably much more important.

In many ways, rules and recipes are much easier to teach and also much easier to understand for the learner than reasons why a phenomenon appears in a certain way, or what lies behind an external pattern of events or ideas, in other words processing information is more challenging than just finding and acknowledging it.

Many skills in life are more complex than just learning the rules, and they demand more than just reading the instruction booklet on how to use a certain tool. Consider learning to drive a car, for instance. You can read the handbook, and learn how the engine and all the controls work, but to drive safely involves a lot more than that. When we argue that learning information literacy is more than learning a set of skills, it means also learning to understand how learning takes place, and how to enhance this process. If we use the driving metaphor, learning IL is also learning about other drivers, about road quality, traffic in general, in other words, how to focus and direct your attention to what is relevant for your journey.

When we gather all the different elements of IL that are relevant in an academic context, like knowledge of referencing, searching, evaluating and understanding information, learning strategies, and academic Bildung (see Chapter 5: Toward Academic Integrity and Critical Thinking), the term academic literacy comes to mind. This term is normally used in connection with language learning, but it is not really too out of place to adopt it to information literacy purposes. Academic literacy could possibly be a more attractive term for students and faculty than information literacy, since it in a better way displays what it is: skills that help you become a better student. Many researchers already use the broader perspective of academic literacy, i.e., including an understanding of academic behavior, both related to reading, writing and research habits. McWilliams and Allan explain the term like this: “Academic literacies include critical thinking, database searching, familiarity with academic conventions such as referencing, use of formal register and the ability to manipulate a range of academic genres, which by definition restrict how meanings can be constructed and conveyed” (McWilliams & Allan, 2014, p. 1).

Will there ever be an ultimate definition of information literacy? As the theories surrounding knowledge and learning develop and change, so will the definitions of IL. We will therefore not dwell further upon this topic. In this book, we consider information literacy to be a fairy broad term that encompasses several other literacies and other related terms, including digital literacy and metaliteracy. It carries with it an understanding that it is relevant for all age groups and many aspects of life, not just the educational one. Even though academic literacy perhaps sounds better to some, it does not have an established use in this connection, and it might exclude someone from a nonacademic context.

Furthermore, we strongly support ALA’s inclusion of learning strategies in the IL discussion. The most important aim of becoming information literate is to learn more and better, and to produce new knowledge, whether you are a student, an employee, or just anyone trying to navigate through life. We will develop this theme further in later chapters, and we deal specifically with learning strategies in Chapter 4, Learning Strategies.

The information literate individual manages the constant flow of data in an effective way and knows how to critically evaluate information and use it to create new knowledge. Further, he takes an active approach to learning and reflects on his own cognitive process. Finally, he acknowledges the ethical side of the use of information and is able to relate to the values involved in information literacy.

Teaching information literacy with these aspects in mind, it is our belief that it is easier to reach our audience. Most students are happy to learn how to create a reference list, but they do not relate to it personally and do not connect it to their own learning and their own attitudes. We believe that teaching IL with learning and academic values in mind will help students understand why reflecting on their learning process will get them further than just mechanically following a set of rules to reach your goal.

2.2.1 Forms of information literacy teaching

Much IL teaching takes the form of one or two sessions with students. Sometimes these sessions are lectures, sometimes online courses, sometimes practical sessions in a computer lab or with students’ own laptops, and sometimes a mix between various teaching forms.

Common for many IL sessions is that it might be one of a few, or even the only one, a student attends throughout his whole course of study. Because of this, most librarians feel the weight of an obligation to make sure they can convey as much information as possible within these short few sessions. Typically, training students in the use of library databases can be seen as a must-do in library instruction. With just a few hours per student group, it seems very difficult to make much room for reflection and discussion, when traditionally, all the aspects of searching for, evaluating and using information must come first. (Read more about the consequences of trying to teach too much in too short a time span in Chapter 3, Things We Know About How Learning Happens.)

It is also very common to include IL courses or sessions early in induction courses, or at the beginning of students’ writing assignments. Unfortunately, most librarians do not necessarily meet the students again, and thus do not have a chance to followup topics that were introduced earlier, or assess whether the students were in fact able to process and practice what was taught in the IL sessions.

2.2.2 Challenges of information literacy teaching

Meeting students in such a relatively short period, with none or few opportunities for follow-up, constitutes a major challenge to IL teachers, in particular when we take into account that learning to become information literate is a process. What we want IL teaching to be, ideally, is simply not possible in a couple of short meetings with the student group. What is also clear is that it is difficult to solve this issue.

Another obstacle is the perception of information literacy as something that is part of academia, but at the same time not part of it. A chemistry professor will often simply teach chemistry and leave the rest to someone else, and a chemistry student will usually concentrate on learning chemistry and not reflect on what it takes to become a good chemistry student, apart from passing the exam. The result of this is very often a fairly low turnout to IL courses, unless they are made compulsory, in which case the participation and enthusiasm among students might be somewhat low.

This perceived gap between IL teaching and the subject-specific teaching reflects a deep challenge in today’s IL teaching, and the two parts are often not sufficiently integrated and seen as related factors in student learning. The solution is not necessarily to drill students and faculty in definitions of information literacy, but making sure that aspects of learning strategies and information behavior are incorporated in all levels of higher education. To enable this we believe IL teaching should encompass a stronger emphasis on enabling students to become proficient learners, and that we should strive to make the relationship between learning skills and IL obvious to both faculty and students. And equally importantly, it requires librarians to be well informed about the students’ subject-specific courses and to communicate well with faculty.

A third challenge we want to draw attention to is connected to how we define information literacy, and how we in the library sector work with the topic from a pedagogical perspective. As we will expand on in the following, many librarians have little pedagogical education, and their teaching methods are sometimes based on trial and error and/or on emulating colleagues or remembered teachers. This often works very well. Yet, teaching without a firm basis in validated theories and conceptions of teaching and learning leaves us without important guideposts for developing our IL teaching practice.

Many of these challenges might be rooted in the thought that information literacy is “just a library course,” i.e., just a bit of information about the library and its many wonderful tools and sources of help for students and faculty. And even when we have librarians who are up to date with the newest teaching methods and developments in academic writing (which we have many of), the library itself might suffer from the enduring image of the librarian stereotype as a strict and shy, alphabet-loving woman, shushing people and dusting old books. We all know that the library has evolved a long way from that image, but the myth lives on in surprisingly many, not just among students, but among faculty and administrative staff as well, and might affect their perception of the usefulness of a library class.

The possibly greatest challenge, however, is being able to reveal the connection between learning and information literacy in a way that students perceive as useful to their own studies. To make this happen, we need a clear understanding as teachers of why we are teaching IL. A well-founded perspective on the importance of information literacy is necessary to enhance the status of IL classes, but also to further a broader understanding of how IL helps both academic formation and lifelong learning.