Research Proposal Literature Review

Running Head: TERMINOLOGY OF INFORMATION LITERACY INSTRUCTION 1
TERMINOLOGY OF INFORMATION LITERACY INSTRUCTION: WHAT TERMS SHOULD PUBLIC
LIBRARIES USE TO PROMOTE AND TEACH INFORMATION LITERACY
Team 7: Alphild Dick, Melendra Sanders, Shelly Speicher, and Julie Temple
June 24, 2012
LI 810XA: Research in Library and Information Science
Emporia State University School of Library and Information Science
Abstract: This overview of information literacy (IL) and information literacy instruction (ILI)
focuses on the terminology used in advocating for and discussion of IL practices in public
libraries. Although the focus of the proposal is on public libraries, the practices reviewed also
look to academic and school libraries for understanding of how IL and ILI are currently
perceived and delivered. This study also considers the unique situation of public libraries in
regards to the terminology that has been appropriated by academic institutions, as well as the
role of public librarians themselves in providing ILI.
Keywords: Information science, Information literacy, Information literacy instruction, advocacy
in information literacy, IL competencies, Information Society
Terminology of Information Literacy Instruction:
The Terms Used by Public Libraries to Promote and Teach Information Literacy

An information literate population, in the 21st century, is a key element in helping create an
engaged citizenry. Not surprisingly, then, information literacy instruction (ILI) is a hot topic in
both scholarly circles and for practicing library and information professionals. However, there is
the question of how these professionals can most effectively encourage information literacy
skills among diverse populations. Academic and school libraries have an increasingly
established tradition of providing library users with opportunities to practice and develop
information literacy at higher levels. On the other hand, the role of public libraries should not
be overlooked in these endeavors. A number of prominent scholars have noted that, because of
their unique history, public libraries are in an excellent position to provide their patrons with
the opportunity to expand their knowledge and skills regarding information literacy.
There are a number of public libraries throughout the U.S. that have established strong IL
programs; ILI is not new or unexplored territory within public library institutions. But despite
these programs, and the potential for other public libraries to institute similar ones, there has
been little documentation or scholarship on these efforts (Hall, pg. 163, 2010). This fact is all
the more startling given the tradition of advocacy for public library services and programs
within the library community. A solid understanding of how IL programs are created, delivered,
and supported within public library communities would have great benefit to other libraries
that are looking to develop or improve their own.
We postulate that advocacy is one of the most important aspects of promoting ILI. Advocacy
includes, among other things, the development of a consistent and coherent message. To this
end, the language and terminology employed are essential components of this message. Not
only can they be the deciding factor in whether or not an individual patron will be interested in
pursuing ILI, but they also greatly affect how ILI is perceived within a population. This impacts
funding, community support, and the place of a library within a community. With this in mind,
our proposal addresses how ILI is discussed, promoted, and assessed by both library and
information professionals and patrons and other community members.
The articles reviewed for this study were selected in order to provide a framework for queries
into the terminology and language used in public library IL advocacy efforts. The articles focus
on three main areas of scholarship: history of information literacy instruction and practice,
issues in the language and terminology of information literacy, and information literacy
advocacy. It is the authors’ goal that this literature review give the reader a strong grasp of
current practices in ILI, illuminate possible terminology useful for a survey into patron
responses to ILI, and provide a basis for further research. With the understanding that current,
reputable research coupled with professional development leads librarians to provide well-
supported and effective ILI programs to their communities, this review hopes to empower

TERMINOLOGY OF INFORMATION LITERACY INSTRUCTION 3
public librarians in their roles as information literacy instructors. As librarians are well aware,
information literacy programs reach well beyond the reference desk paradigm of librarianship.
However, it is imperative for the future of ILI that we advocate effectively for these services,
which can only be done if we understand the impact our presentation of ILI has on
communities.
Statement of Research Problem:
While a great deal of discussion has gone into the widely accepted definitions of information
literacy, current research has only begun to address the matter of the effects of terminology on
the reception of information literacy by patrons in various library settings. As Isaacson (2003),
Lin (2010), and Hall (2010) point out, the term “information literacy” might have negative
connotations, implying that patrons are lacking sufficient information comprehension skills.
With the advent of Web 2.0, the information community agrees that the acquisition of
information literacy is more critical than ever; as Everitt and Mills (2009) write, “Web 2.0 has
been said both to harness collective intelligence but also to encourage a mob of stupidity” (as
cited in Koltay, 2009, pg. 247). Learning to separate information trash from treasure takes more
than passing familiarity with the Internet. Nonetheless, patrons are often reluctant to
participate in information literacy instruction. Isaacson (2003) suggests that “people may
become just as ashamed of being illiterate in information as they are of being illiterate in other
ways” (p.42).
Although there is much research and writing related to information literacy and information
literacy instruction, little of it focuses specifically on the public library. A number of possible
reasons for this deficiency have been proposed. For example, Genevieve Hart (2006) points to
the remnants of the warehouse paradigm as continuing to influence how public librarians view
providing patrons with information as opposed to providing information literacy training (i.e.,
teaching critical thinking skills that would help them locate and evaluate information
independently). Moreover, an analysis by Tibor Koltay (2011) strongly suggests that the
perceived divide between academic and public libraries presents a kind of obstacle in the
development of viable ILI programs within the public library arena.
As discussed previously, this is not a sustainable situation for public libraries. Indeed, public
libraries must take on a larger role in ILI; with that in mind, more extensive study can only assist
advocacy efforts. As more scholars call for a focus on public libraries, the specific language
utilized to discuss ILI gains increasing importance as a research focus. It is the goal of this paper
to establish the need for study of the terms used for information literacy programs and
advocacy. Using a mixed-methods approach including content analysis of advocacy literature

and IL promotions, we will determine the most common terms and phrases used to promote
ILI, with the ultimate goal of creating a survey with which public opinion related to information
literacy terminology can be judged in order to aid in the provision of ILI by public libraries.
History of Information Literacy Instruction and Practice
Before delving into a study focused on the terminology of information literacy (IL) and IL
advocacy campaigns, it is important to first review literature that details the history of IL as well
as literature that depicts other researchers’ and information professionals’ perceptions of IL. In
their chapter, Information Literacy Instruction, Esther S. Grassian and Joan R. Kaplowitz (2009)
provide a brief, but useful, overview of the history of ILI, tracing the understanding of
information literacy from the early “library use” instruction found in the United States during
the 19th century, through the bibliographic instruction of the 1970s and 1980s, to the current
ideas of IL with their broader focus on both technological expertise and the skills necessary for
lifelong learning that ILI enhances. They also address the expansion of those involved in ILI,
demonstrating its implementation in academic, school, and public libraries.
After establishing the importance of information literacy, Grassian and Kaplowitz discuss the
steps involved in the creation of an ILI program, describing the process of planning,
implementing, and evaluating such programs. In the course of this discussion, the authors
provide useful recommendations for each step, including the promotion and advocacy of ILI
programs. They write, “Peer-to-peer comments, word-of-mouth, creative publicity, and
branding all contribute to ongoing and expanding success of ILI programs” (pg. 2438). They also
emphasize the role of strategic partnerships with various stakeholders in the effort to establish
and enhance ILI programming, noting the obvious partnership opportunities among libraries,
specifically among different types of libraries, but also suggesting resources outside of libraries
altogether. The importance of strategic partnerships will be discussed in greater detail in the
Information Literacy Advocacy section of this review.
The chapter concludes with a section focused on ideas for improving one’s teaching abilities
and methods. Interestingly, many of these techniques are in line with the suggestions that
Webber and Johnston (2000) and Marcum (2002) propose for best practices in teaching IL.
Unlike Webber and Johnston or Marcum, Grassian and Kaplowitz clearly see ILI as within the
domain of libraries, nor do they question the current definitions of information literacy. Rather,
they provide an overview of the subject that would be perfectly at home in a library and
information science class.

Toby Leigh Matoush (2006) mentions the importance of partnerships between librarians and
faculty in his description of the IL programs provided for the students of San Jose State
University (SJSU), particularly for college freshmen. He writes that although some librarians give
only one-shot instructions of basic library use, “others worked closely with MUSE professors to
develop tailored instructional sessions focused on finding material for the class assignment”
(pg. 160). In order to make efficient use of the students’ class time in the library, the librarians
created online tutorials that the students completed before class, which allowed them to focus
on the MUSE professors’ course content in more depth; the SJSU professors understand the
benefits of having more than just a one-shot IL session.
In his article, Rethinking Information Literacy, James W. Marcum (2002) highlights the
importance of a number of previous authors, including Breivik, Neely, and Bruce,
demonstrating how their presentation of information literacy expanded it from a library
concern to a much broader topic of interest to the world. In fact, they establish information
literacy as “central to the very learning process” (pg. 2). Marcum goes on to illustrate the
current IL model as a process in which information proceeds through key stages, “progressing
from noise (unorganized data) to perceived data, to (organized) information, to knowledge”
(pg. 3). However, Marcum questions this model and calls for moving beyond the current
information literacy paradigm to something he is naming sociotechnical fluency (pg. 20).
Although he does not give a specific definition of sociotechnical fluency, he conveys the idea of
mastering the skills necessary to negotiate social, visual, technical, and informational
knowledge within the broad context of one’s life, not only academic situations. This model
lends itself to public libraries, where academic success is not the focal point of service provided
to the patrons.
Marcum discusses in great detail the compartmentalized ideas of IL and how the checklist of
“skills” often used to assess IL competency ends up being taught in an oversimplified manner
that gives the impression that information literacy is easy to attain. Yet at the same time the
actual definitions of information literacy call for so much expertise as to be impossible to truly
master without a higher degree in information or library science. Tied up in Marcum’s call for a
change in theory is the need for a significant change in the understanding of how information
becomes knowledge. Marcum argues that knowledge is not the next step from gaining
information, but instead that knowledge comes from the complex interaction of learning, which
takes place in multiple ways and contexts. He stresses that gaining information is not the same
as knowing how to integrate information into a knowledge context.
In some ways, Marcum’s arguments align with those of Webber and Johnston (2000) in their
call for acknowledging that IL is more than a simple set of “skills” for use in learning about other

subject, but rather should be considered a subject of study in its own right. Along with Webber
and Johnston, Marcum calls for significant changes to the way IL is taught, focusing on the need
for social context, peer evaluation, and group work as important to gaining competencies in
information use and knowledge. However, he calls for more drastic steps than simply reworking
the way IL is taught, instead suggesting a new understanding of what is necessary for
participation in the modern and future information world, stating, “it is learning rather than
information, and sociotechnical fluency rather than literacy, that comprise the agenda for
tomorrow” (pg. 21).
Sheila Webber and Bill Johnston (2000) make the case that the way IL has been discussed and
defined has established teaching strategies that both devalue IL and make it appear less
complex than it actually is. In their article, Conceptions of Information Literacy: New
Perspectives and Implications, they argue that this oversimplification and incorrect pedagogic
approach perpetuates a perception of IL as simply “library use” education that is best taught as
a one-shot in a conjunction with a course about a separate subject. Much of the blame for this
oversimplification is laid upon the tendency to define IL through a “list” of competencies
individuals must master in order to be information literate.
Webber and Johnston present an overview of how this “list” system of definition grew out of
“many years’ experience that librarians have in ‘user education’” (pg. 384). The authors argue
that “this fragments the field of knowledge and reflects a ‘surface learning’ approach (with a
short-term focus on the task in hand) rather than a ‘deep learning’ one (in which the students
are encouraged to reflect on and contextualize what they are learning” (pg. 384). Rather than a
list of skills that is learned by rote, the authors envision IL education as a discipline of study in
its own right, with its own philosophical underpinnings and theories. To achieve this goal, they
propose that information literacy should be the domain of information scientists rather than
librarians.
To support their endorsement of a change in pedagogical approach, Webber and Johnston
present evidence drawn from a course they created together which was successfully taught on
multiple occasions. In planning the course, they utilized an “action research approach to course
design,” a method of teaching that “allows the investigation of educational questions and
professional experience by integrating practice, and analysis of practice, as a unified
development” (pg. 388). Webber and Johnston demonstrate how this approach allowed
students to reflect upon their own understanding of and competencies in information literacy,
arguing that the ability of students to perceive their own changing attitudes toward IL is an
essential component to learning to be more information literate. They trace some of the
changes that took place in student perceptions, from an early student focus on the technology

aspects of IL to a later understanding of the importance of “evaluation, application and
organization of information as being subjects distinctive to information literacy” (pg. 391).
Although some of the suggestions Webber and Johnston present align with Marcum (2002),
such as reflective analysis of learning and social/peer interaction within the classroom, they
differ in their emphasis on the idea that IL should be treated as a distinct educational discipline.
Marcum calls for less isolation and more integration of ILI into everyday learning environments,
for example job training, while Webber and Johnston’s pedagogical approach is clearly
academically situated.
Evaluation is also an important topic within the discussions of IL and ILI. In his article,
Information Literacy Assessment: Where Do We Start?, Andrew Walsh (2009) addresses issues
of how best to evaluate ILI in the context of academic libraries. The article categorizes and
evaluates nine assessment tools, ranking them based upon criteria such as how difficult they
are to administer and whether they truly gauge an individual’s skills. Walsh's discussion of
papers and portfolios as methods of evaluating student learning provides an interesting
perspective; he points out that while these two assessment techniques have shortcomings,
they appear to be the ones best suited to demonstrating actual learning outcomes.
Along these lines, Walsh also points out some difficulties of self-assessment, called for by
Marcum (2002), or self-reflection, called for by Webber and Johnston (2000), as gauges of
student learning, noting that self-assessment and even self-reflection are highly subjective and
students often assess themselves to have greater skill than they actually obtain. While all of the
options Walsh investigates have been used in conjunction with an academic library or academic
classes, the discussion of ILI assessment resonates with the emphasis Grassian and Kaplowitz
(2009) place on assessment of ILI outcomes in all settings.
What skills are precisely contained within domains of IL presents another significant challenge
to researchers. One such researcher who concerns himself with this question is Tibor Koltay. In
his article Information Literacy for Amateurs and Professionals: The Potential of Academic,
Special and Public Libraries, Koltay (2011) contends that the technologies presented in Web 2.0
and Library 2.0 are more accurately thought of as “toys” than as useful tools for scholarship.
Koltay contends that both the careful analysis of critical sources and librarians themselves have
become more important in academic and special libraries, while public libraries are perfectly
situated to offer “digital” literacy skills such as Web 2.0 applications. Koltay argues that, in fact,
the public library is the ideal setting for such amateur learning because public libraries serve the
uneducated masses, and not professional scholars. So, while ordinary citizens are the
consumers of information, scholars are the creators of information. The divide that Koltay

assumes between the missions of academic and public libraries is illustrative of challenges
public libraries face in establishing credibility as providers of real and viable information literacy
programs.
As can be seen in the literature previously discussed, IL has become an important concern in
almost all libraries; however, there has been little scholarship on information literacy in public
libraries. In her article, Public Praxis: A Vision for Critical Information Literacy in Public Libraries,
Rachel Hall (2010) points to the relative silence of the Public Library Association in relation to IL
as well as earlier scholarship by “Harding (2008), Hart (1998), Jackson (1995), Lewis (2007),
Virkus and Walter (2003), [which chronicles] this dearth of literature and research on the
subject of public libraries and information literacy” (pg. 163). Hall postulates that this deficiency
of scholarship could stem from misunderstandings of information literacy, noting, “Perhaps
there is too much confusion surrounding the concept itself, leading public librarians to believe
that information literacy is only relevant to academic and research institutions” (pg. 163).
Hall goes on to argue that the opposite is true. She writes that “information literacy is actually
beautifully relevant within the mission of public libraries” (pg. 163), because it supports one of
the most central goals of public library service, providing opportunities for lifelong learning
within a community. Because of this alignment, Hall proposes that the public library is the
perfect place to teach information literacy, looking to the educational works of John Dewey and
Paolo Freire to discuss the best ways to teach the skills that lead to lifelong learning in order to
create an educated, engaged populace.
Hall draws from new literacy studies and critical literacy theory to coin the phrase “critical
information literacy,” meaning that librarians must abandon the position of power that the
teacher student paradigm establishes and instead meet their patrons on the common ground
of patron interest and concern. Hall provides the example, “in some communities, this
approach might mean using Google, Wikipedia, and Facebook as instruments to pose problems
and uncover hidden voices" (pg. 168). This provides a departure from Koltay’s argument, as it
validates newer Web 2.0 media within ILI.
An effort to meet the patron on equal terms that address specific patron needs and questions
can be compared to Marcum’s calls for sociotechnical fluency, in that it too stresses the need to
present information literacy as an integrated part of everyday life and not as something
removed to educational settings. However, unlike Marcum (2002) and Webber and Johnston
(2000), Hall clearly argues that the public library is the best place to teach information literacy,
rather than the workplace, the school library, or academia.

In their in-depth history of information literacy (IL), Information Literacy: Essential Skills for the
Information Age, Kathleen L. Spitzer, Michael B. Eisenberg, and Carrie A. Lowe (1998) trace the
development of the idea of IL in more detail than any other resource previously discussed in
this review. The book clearly illustrates different pressures and concerns that have played a
part in building the current definition of IL. In order to demonstrate the broad range of
involvement in and concern about IL, Spitzer et al. highlight some of the key groups who have
taken a hand in defining it, from the American Library Association to the American Association
of Higher Education and the National Education Association, as well as various accreditation
associations.
Spitzer et al. also discuss some of the literacies that are commonly encompassed within IL, such
as visual literacy, media literacy, computer literacy, and network literacy, providing clear
definitions of each drawn from their own as well as other scholars’ research. Although the
authors call for an inclusion of more “literacies”, they do not question the “list” approach to
defining IL; like Marcum (2002) and Webber and Johnston (2000), rather, in this book Spitzer et
al. present the current definitions as a culmination of decades of discussion about information
literacy.
This overview of IL and the authors’ detailed look at the establishment of national and state
educational standards of IL, mapping out the academic and school library approaches to IL,
provide a useful history. However, two areas of discussion are of more relevance to this
research. Spitzer et al. present examples from some public libraries that “teach information
literacy skills to groups, and in one-to-one sessions” (pg. 205), from Deerfield Public Library in
Illinois to the Science, Industry and Business Library (SIBL), a branch of the New York Public
Library in Manhattan. Another IL project cited was developed through a partnership between
the Lila Wallace Readers’ Digest Fund and the America Library association which allowed
Onondaga County Public Library in NY to develop a literacy/learner curriculum that teaches
“basic literacy students how to search for information using a computer…how to communicate
via e-mail, how to read their search results, and how to analyze information found in print and
electronic resources” (pg. 206). These examples illustrate the types of IL programs typically
found in public libraries, programs that are focused on everyday technology and information
skills rather than academic skills.
Another relevant aspect of the book is its discussion of IL in the workplace and the ways that
technology is transforming professional expectations so that information literacy is a key
component of successful business practice. The authors highlight five trends drawn from
Banner that will require the general populace to have increased information skills: The Virtual
Organization, The Just In Time Workforce, The Ascendancy of Knowledge Workers, The Growth

of Worker Diversity, and The Birth of the Dynamic Work Force. Further discussion of these
trends could prove useful for advocacy of IL programs in public libraries.
Issues in the Language and Terminology of Information Literacy
In regards to the ways in which information literacy as a term is used in the LIS field, there are
two main veins of discussion. By far, the most prominent discussion deals with how IL is
defined. It is frequently noted in literature that there is a lack of consensus and clarity as to
what IL is and, just as importantly, how it applies to individuals. This is especially true of IL
within the context of public libraries. The other line of inquiry, which is less frequently explored,
deals with the terminology used to discuss, advocate, and market IL outreach and programs
within libraries. It is this line of inquiry that this study is most interested in, but it is still
necessary to consider how information literacy is defined, as it ultimately has bearing on the
terminology.
For the purposes of this paper, we ascribe to the 1989 ALA definition of information literacy,
which states that, “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 definition is broadly accepted, though, as the following
scholarship observes, not without reservations.
One of the most essential works in this field is Information literacy: Essential skills for the
information age, by Kathleen L. Spitzer, Michael B. Eisenberg, and Carrie A. Lowe (1998). This
book provides a comprehensive overview of the history and practice of information literacy in
the 20th and early 21st centuries. Although it focuses on a number of important topics, the
work offers a key exploration of how IL is defined, exploring the evolution of the term, from
Paul Zurkowski’s introduction of the topic in 1974 to ALA’s 1989 definition. The book raises
important questions regarding the ALA definition of information literacy, pointing out that it
does not accurately define literacy among different mediums. They write, “It is important that
we consider all of these possibilities when we use the term information and that we not be tied
to the mental image of printed words and numbers. Using information in a variety of formats
requires literacies beyond the basic literacies of reading and writing” (pg. 26).
Another scholar who both utilizes and questions the ALA definition of IL is Rachel Hall. Hall’s
article, Public Praxis: A Vision for Critical Information Literacy in Public Libraries (2010), deals
with, in part, the evolution of the definition of information literacy. For her part, Hall broadly
ascribes to the ALA definition of IL as stated above and notes, as we do, that this definition is
broadly accepted among information literacy scholars. However, she also points out that this

acceptance is not universal; according to Hall, information literacy, as a term, has been a source
of conflict among scholars. She writes, “Twenty years ago, ALA wrote the by now canonical
library definition of information literacy…While this definition provides a useful starting point
for understanding information literacy, a number of writers have pointed out its shortcomings”
(pg. 163).
Although scholars have various and unique objections to this definition, Hall suggests that the
critical voices—such as Alan Luke, Cushla Kapitzke, and Michelle Holschuh Simmons—find that
the definition characterizes the “learner” or “user” as a passive recipient of skills. Hall also cites
the work of scholar, James Elmborg, who argues for “an alternative definition with richer critical
possibilities” (pg. 164). She suggests that, in accordance with Elmborg’s definition, IL is the set
of knowledge and skills that allow individuals to receive, decipher, and create information
“appropriate and valued” within their own community (pg. 164).
Similarly, Edward K. Owusu-Ansah, in his article, Debating Definitions of Information Literacy:
Enough Is Enough! (2005), presents a broad overview of the history of and conflicts in the
definitions of IL. Owusu-Ansah suggests that, “these debates often create impressions of
potential conflicts when there are truly none. Though [librarians] think they say different things,
proponents of various interpretations do say mostly the same things in different ways” (pg.
367). Owusu-Ansah discusses the contributions of scholars such as Eisenberg and Kuhlthau and
organizations such as ACRL and ALA to the definition of IL, but most interestingly, he maps the
ways in which practicing librarians have influenced the definition. He notes that, “librarians,
seeking greater participation in the educational process saw a unique opportunity to
contribute. They could, concurrent with their existing custodial duties of collecting, organizing
and providing access to the multiple forms and sources of information, also help…” (pg. 370).
Owusu-Ansah also points out that by creating a more cohesive operational definition of IL,
libraries and librarians will be better able to identify the ways in which they can contribute to
discussions regarding IL. This, in turn, will allow them to put more time and energy into IL
programs and practice.
However, scholars are not just questioning the definition of information literacy, but also how
the term is being used and understood by scholars and librarians. One of the most direct
addresses to the terminology of IL can be found in Peyina Lin’s article, Information Literacy
Barriers: Language Use and Social Structure (2010). She observes that, “examining the
terminology of ‘information literacy’ is not new” (pg. 551). For example, “competence” and
“fluency” are often used as synonyms. The author indicates that as it is currently understood,
the term IL has “negative implications that hinder some to pursue active self learning and thus a
full participation in civility” (pg. 548). The term literate is affiliated with the ability to read to

most. If librarians offer a class in information literacy, this can imply that the participants “who
take the class cannot read or understand, and this may not be the case in those seeking help in
diffusion of information” (pg. 548).
But more importantly for our purposes, Lin is concerned with the effects that our definitions
and usage of terminology has on how IL is perceived, noting that while many scholars have
questioned the definitions of IL, none have paused to examine the potential for negative
reactions to the term. Lin is inspired by the concepts of heterophily and homophily and their
application to IL outreach. She observes that one challenge that presents itself to IL outreach
efforts is that IL is “a new idea or concept to the majority of the population” and that
“homophily in terms of likeness in ‘language’ is crucial for the exposure to them to be effective”
(pg. 554).
Another scholar that relies on the 1989 ALA definition of information literacy is Carol Brey-
Casiano in her article From Literate to Information Literate Communities Through Advocacy
(2006). In this article, she writes that “information literacy is the ability to find and use
information” (pg. 183). This definition also borrows from Information Power, published by the
American Association of School Librarians. Brey-Casiano suggests that this definition is clear,
but the way it is understood and implemented by public librarians requires some examination.
What is more important, she notes, is how “public librarians communicate the importance of
information literacy to our communities” (pg. 183).
With this in mind, she suggests that one of the key factors is the message public libraries create
for information literacy campaigns. She writes, “How you develop your message, and deliver it
to most effectively make your case, is…critical” (pg. 186). Although this statement does not
directly address the impact of terminology on IL advocacy in public libraries, it does suggest
that campaigns can, and should, be marketed in unique ways to appeal to patrons—a
statement that does not rule out altering terminology.
Language is, of course, important in institutional practices for ILI. In Best Practices in
Information Literacy (2004), Fiona Hunt and Jane Birks outline practices originally derived from
the ACRL (Association of College and Research Libraries) in the association’s “Characteristics of
Programs of Information Literacy that Illustrate Best Practices,” providing some interesting
observations regarding the nature of advocacy in an institutional setting. Hunt and Birks note
that language is important in establishing advocacy practices, citing Patricia Iannuzzi (1998),
who suggests that librarians “look for language that ‘incorporates or embodies the spirit of
information literacy,’ regardless of whether the actual phrase is used. Many universities and

colleges, for example, support the goal of “life-long learning”—a goal that cannot be achieved
without information literacy skills” (pg. 29).
Another oft-cited work comes from Jane Harding. In Information Literacy and the Public Library:
We’ve Talked the Talk But Are We Walking the Walk (2010), Harding thoroughly discusses the
issues encountered by public libraries in their efforts to develop information literacy programs.
Although this article is less concerned with the strict task of defining information literacy, it is
essential thanks to its assessment of the state of scholarship examining ILI in public libraries; as
she writes, there is scant work concerning public libraries. Nonetheless, Harding makes a key
observation when she notes that, in doing groundwork for this particular article, her search
results were significantly expanded when she broadened her search terms to include “user
education” and “lifelong learning” (pg. 278).
The article The Need for Appropriate IL Instruction in a Public Library Setting by Loriene Roy,
Trina Bolfing, Bonnie Brzozowski (2010) highlights a technique often employed by public
libraries, that of providing information literacy instruction under the guise of another skill. The
authors cite an information literacy program offered at the Austin Public Library where LIS
delivered instructional sessions designed to bolster job-seekers’ technology skills and
information literacy, focusing on topics such as the construction of resumes and cover letters,
interviewing etiquette and technique, and social networking/identity management. Roy, Bolfing
and Brzozowski note that the use of terminology relevant to patron needs may have influenced
the success of the program.
Similarly, in her article, Taking Information Literacy Outside of the Library and Into the
Workplace, Annemaree Lloyd (2011) calls for information professionals to examine current
information literacy investigations and research. The article asks readers to think about
information literacy outside the realm of libraries and in the workplace instead. Lloyd
speculates that there is a valuable and untapped resource to be found in the practical
applications of information literacy. Rather than using the term information literacy, the author
suggests the adoption of the term information practice, which implies constant information
diffusion that continually benefits the members of a workplace setting.

Information Literacy Advocacy
IL advocacy is mentioned in passing in many IL articles, but other articles focus specifically on IL
advocacy. As seen earlier, the scholar Brey-Casiano (2008) provides tips to help libraries
develop and implement an advocacy “Action Plan”. She writes:
Recent studies indicate that the general public may not be turning to their libraries for
assistance with information, or information literacy. How can we–as librarians, library
workers, and library stakeholders–broadcast our role as the ultimate source for
information literacy? The answer, of course, is: advocacy. (pg. 184)
The two key elements of a solid IL advocacy action plan, according to Brey-Casiano, are having a
clear message and networking with stakeholders outside the library to spread the message.
Once a clear, concise message has been created, it is important to host an “orientation session
for library staff regarding your new advocacy campaign” (pg. 186) to ensure that everyone fully
understands the message and how it should be broadcast. One recommendation that Brey-
Casiano gives for creating a useful message is to “Think of stories from your own experience
that truly illustrate the importance of information literacy” (pg. 186). Personal anecdotes
relating IL success stories can be used to promote new and existing IL programs effectively.
Brey-Casiano also emphasizes the importance of strong partnerships with key stakeholders,
including Library Board members, Friends of the Library, leaders in the local business
community, along with other community leaders and members of the local media. By creating
strong partnerships with these stakeholders, libraries are able to maximize the effectiveness of
their IL advocacy. Harding (2008) highlights the importance of partnerships as well, writing,
“many assert that partnerships are both essential and the best way for public libraries to
approach information literacy development and an increase in interest in collaborative efforts
between institutions is emerging” (pg. 82). Harding discusses partnerships between public
libraries and academic institutions, public libraries and other government and private
organizations, and public libraries and individual community members. Strong support from
these sectors can help public librarians in their advocacy efforts to other potential allies as well
as patrons.
Weiner and Jackman, in Information Literacy Beyond the Library (2008), take IL advocacy
partnerships one step further, moving from the local to the national level. They describe the
purpose and activities of the National Forum on Information Literacy, Inc. (NFIL), a nonprofit
corporation that serves as an important, high-profile advocate for IL both nationally and, to
some extent, internationally. NFIL was founded in 1989, and although the founders “expected
that information literacy would quickly become ubiquitous,” the reality is that “societal

integration of information literacy remains a significant challenge in the U.S.” (pg. 115). In 2009,
NFIL transitioned from a volunteer group to a corporation, which allows them to use “market-
based strategies to advance a social mission and sustain its organizational viability. It can now
pursue public and private funding to further information literacy initiatives” (pg. 117).
With NFIL’s incorporation and increased access to funding, they are able to promote the
message of IL and the importance of IL for improving quality of life. One notable act of
advocacy was gaining government support of their IL initiatives. The authors write, “In 2009,
President Obama proclaimed October National Information Literacy Awareness Month, an
initiative spearheaded by the National Forum on Information Literacy (NFIL), with direct
support from Senator John Kerry and the late Senator Edward Kennedy” (pg. 118). Such support
from noteworthy members of the U.S. government shows that IL can be effectively promoted
on a large, national scale.
Going one step further, to the international level, Horton (2011) describes the leading
international organizations advocating for IL and several important summits where these
organizations have met to discuss IL advocacy. The key international organizations include the
International Federation for Information and Documentation, the International Federation for
Library Associations and Organizations and the United Nations Educational, Scientific and
Cultural Organization. The U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science and
NFIL also participated in the international meetings.
One of their conclusions was that “whatever strategies [they] developed must include a strong
component aimed at increasing public awareness of just what information literacy was
intended to mean” (pg. 268), which established them as IL advocates on an international scale.
In spite of the collaboration of these organizations, “Each major cultural geographic region,
even going down to the subregion and the country levels, seems to have its own unique
interpretation of how to define and advance the IL idea in the context of its own education and
training policies and programs” (pg. 271). While this may not initially seem ideal, it shows that
both IL programs and advocacy campaigns are flexible enough to adapt to individual
communities and cultures.
However, not everyone agrees on the fundamental importance of IL advocacy. David Isaacson,
in Let’s Talk Libraries, Not Information Literacy (2003), writes, “It is a mistake to mount a
campaign to demonstrate that the public lacks still another form of ‘literacy.’ People may
become just as ashamed of being illiterate in information as they are of being illiterate in other
ways” (pg. 42). Isaacson’s main concern is in the term “information literacy” as it has
implications that patrons who participate in IL programs may be information illiterate. Such

implications could potentially damage not only IL programs, but could also negatively impact
the public’s perception of the library itself. Instead of focusing on IL, Isaacson encourages
librarians to advocate for libraries. He makes a compelling argument, reminding readers that
people need to come to the library before the librarians can teach them how to be information
literate.
Hall (2010), as cited previously, takes a position on IL advocacy that is diametrically opposed to
Isaacson and his perspective on the topic; unlike Isaacson, she argues that without something
more substantial, like IL, library advocacy can become a hollow popularity contest. Hall points
to the Public Library Association and its 2005 strategic plan, in which their “10 to 30 year ‘Big
Audacious Goal,’” was to “Make the library card the most valued card in every wallet” (pg. 171).
Hall writes, “The rest of the PLA’s Strategic Plan is approximately the same, with the emphasis
on garnering fans and financial contributions. While I agree that economic health is essential to
the prosperity of any public library, I also think that these goals lack a true core and focus” (pg.
171).
Without diminishing the importance of drawing people into the library in the first place, Hall
shows that public libraries can use IL programs to better the lives of their patrons. She suggests
an alternative goal for the PLA, which is to “Make the public library a central agent in
empowering an informed and democratic society” (pg. 171). Although she does not use the
term “information literacy,” definitions of IL often include phrases similar to “informed and
democratic society,” indicating her intention to make IL a central goal for public libraries.
On the perceptions of IL, Hall and Isaacson are in agreement. Hall also expresses concern that
the term “information literacy” could negatively impact the perception of IL programs,
particularly in light of public libraries’ ongoing emphasis on more traditional “book-based”
literacy. “While I applaud the PLA’s efforts to stimulate book-based literacy,” Hall writes, “this
may be interfering with public libraries’ willingness to embrace information literacy” (pg. 172).
Likewise, Brey-Casiano also points out that “the public library is also a great place to gain the
basic literacy skills that form the basis for information literacy. Clearly, one must be able to read
before adopting effective information literacy skills” (pg. 184).
Although this is true in a very literal sense, it is important to be conscious of the connotations
associated with the term “literacy” in the minds of both patrons and librarians. As long as public
libraries focus much of their programming energy into traditional literacy programs, the
connection of the term “literacy” to IL could influence not only patrons, but also public
librarians’ understanding of IL. If librarians themselves do not have a firm grasp of what they
are advocating for, efforts are doomed to fail. Relevant and accessible terminology directly

influences the opinions and understanding of everyone involved and the heretofore lack of this
terminology has made marketing IL programs challenging.
Harding reinforces this concern, particularly regarding the role of librarians, claiming that
“many librarians, especially public librarians, may be the least able spokespersons” in efforts of
IL advocacy because of “a lack of understanding and knowledge of information literacy
concepts by librarians” (pg. 84). Librarians “view information literacy very narrowly as the
teaching of information searching skills and use it as an ‘umbrella term’ for a large array of
library activities such as user education and library orientation” (pg. 84), which underscores the
misunderstandings of IL. While it is important for IL programs and advocacy to reflect the
communities in which they operate, there should be more consistency in the definitions and
understanding of the concept of IL. Clearly defined terminology could help.
Research Aim and Questions
The goal of this research is to determine how the term “information literacy” is perceived by
both patrons and public librarians and how these perceptions impact the success of IL
programs. By examining the terminology used in IL advocacy campaigns, the dominant
terminology can be identified. Once identified, a survey to evaluate the reactions of both public
library patrons and librarians will be created and distributed. The findings of the content
analysis and survey will answer these research questions:
 What are the dominant terminologies used in conjunction with IL programs (i.e.
information literacy, information competency, lifelong learning, etc.)?
 What connotations do each of these terms have, and are they positive or negative?
 How do public library patrons react to each of these terms?
 How do public librarians react to each of these terms?
 What terms best represent the concept of IL while maintaining the best reaction from
both librarians and patrons?
The findings of this research will hopefully identify appropriate terminology that can
successfully market IL programs in public libraries.
Assumptions of the Research

Based on the review of the literature above, it is assumed that the term “information literacy”
holds a negative connotation, implying that those who need ILI are information illiterate.
Similar connotations are attached to the term “information competency,” which would imply
that the people in the program are incompetent. The literature reviewed above also indicates
that the definition of IL is unclear to both patrons and librarians, and that without a clearer
definition, it will be difficult to advocate for IL.
Prior to conducting our content analysis, it is difficult to create a viable projection that will
serve to guide the creation of our survey. However, we venture that patrons will find everyday
language more appealing and accessible, and that the adoption of such terminology will
improve the success of IL programs and advocacy.
Significance of the Research
While the literature reviewed above addresses the need for a change in IL terminology, there
seems to be little empirical research that addresses how the term information literacy affects
both patrons and librarians, and consequently the success of IL programs. As noted by Hall
(2010), there is also a significant lack of research on IL programs in public libraries compared to
the wealth of research on these programs in school and academic libraries. This study would
address each of these gaps in IL research. It will also propose alternative terms that would
market IL programs more successfully.

References
Brey-Casiano, C.A. (2006). From literate to information literate communities through advocacy,
Public Library Quarterly, 25(1-2), 181-190.
Elmborg, J. (2006). Critical information literacy implications for instructional practice, Journal of
Academic Librarianship, 32(2), 192-9.
Grassian, E.S. & Kaplowitz, J.R. (2009). Information literacy instruction. Encyclopedia of library
and information sciences, 3rd ed. Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press.
Hall, R. (2010). Public praxis: A vision for critical information literacy in public libraries, Public
library quarterly, 29(2), 162-175.
Harding, J. (2008). Information literacy and the public library: We've talked the talk, but are we
walking the walk?. Australian Library Journal, 57(3), 274-294.
Hart, G. (2006). Public librarians and information literacy education: Views from Mpumalanga
Province: research article. South African Journal of Libraries and Information Science,
72(3), 172-184.
Hobbs, R. (2006). Reconceptualizing media literacy for the digital age, in Matin, A. & Madigan,
D. (Eds), Digital Libraries for Learning, (pp. 99-109). London: Facet.
Hunt, F., & Birks, J., (2004). Best practices in information literacy, Library and the academy, 4(1),
27-39. doi: 10.1353/pla.2004.001
Isaacson, D. (2003). Lets talk libraries, not information literacy, Library Journal, 128(19), 42.
Koltay, T. (2011). Information literacy for amateurs and professionals: The potential of
academic, special libraries, Library Review, 60(3), 246-257.
Marcum, J.W. (2002). Rethinking information literacy. The library quarterly, 72(1). 1-26.
Matoush, T. L. (2006). New forms of information literacy. Reference Services Review, 34(1), 156-
163.
Lin, P. (2010), Information literacy barriers: Language use and social structure, Library High
Tech, 28(4), 548-568.
Lloyd, A. (2011). Trapped between a rock and a hard place: What counts as information literacy
in the workplace and how is it conceptualized, Library Trends, 60(2), 277-296.
Owusu-Ansah, E. K. (2005). Debating definitions of information literacy: Enough is enough!.
Library Review, 54(6), 366-374.
Roy, L., Bolfing, T., & Brzozowski, B., (2010). Computer classes for job seekers: LIS students
team with public librarians to extend public services, Public Library Quarterly, 29, 193-
209.
Spitzer, K.L., Eisenberg, M.B., & Lowe, C.A. (1998). Information literacy: Essential skills for the
information age. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.
Webber, S. & Johnston, B. (2000). Conceptions of information literacy: New perspectives and
implications. Journal of information science, 26(6), 381-397.

Weiner, S.A. & Jackman, L.W. (2010). The National Forum on Information Literacy, Inc. College
& Undergraduate Libraries, 17(1), 114-120.

Research Proposal Literature Review

Recomendados

Recomendados

Más contenido relacionado

La actualidad más candente

La actualidad más candente (20)

Destacado

Destacado (11)

Similar a Research Proposal Literature Review

Similar a Research Proposal Literature Review (20)

Más de Melendra Sanders

Más de Melendra Sanders (20)

Último

Último (20)

Research Proposal Literature Review