Bridging Skills and Thresholds: Exploring Instructors’ Definitions of Information Literacy Using Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy
Amanda L. Folk, Katie Blocksidge, Jane Hammons, Hanna Primeau
The Ohio State University, Columbus, USA
Not quite 20 years ago, Simmons (2005) positioned academic librarians as information literacy discourse mediators between instructors, who are expert researchers within their disciplines, and students, who are typically scholarly and disciplinary novices. This positioning puts librarians in a potentially powerful role in bridging the gap between instructors’ expectations and students’ performance on information literacy-related assignments, such as research assignments. Indeed, previous research provides evidence of this expectations gap. Even though much of academic librarianship was still subscribing to a skills-based conceptualization of information literacy when Simmons (2005) wrote her seminal article, elements of the second-wave constructivist conceptualization of information literacy (Hicks and Lloyd, 2021) are evident in her argument that librarians could and should help students to identify and understand the ways of thinking and knowing that are valued in disciplines and higher education more generally.
Existing research has provided some insight into how instructors perceive or define information literacy, and this research is foundational for considering how academic librarians can serve as discourse mediators. However, most of these studies predate the second-wave shift to a constructivist perspective of information literacy emphasizing “conceptual ideas rather than teaching practices” (Hicks and Lloyd, 2021, p. 569). Because of this shift, the role of academic librarians as discourse mediators might be more relevant now than ever. For example, the ACRL Framework, a second-wave document, is rooted in threshold concept theory, which is the idea that students must cross particular conceptual thresholds to begin understanding the ways of thinking, knowing, and acting with respect to information use and knowledge creation within academic and disciplinary communities.
In this paper, we describe a qualitative study that employs a novel approach to exploring the information literacy perceptions of 51 instructors across a range of disciplines at a research university in the United States. We used Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy, which is a commonly used framework for the development of learning outcomes related to the complexity of cognition required to meet instructors’ expectations, to bridge the second-wave abstract conceptualizations of information literacy, such as those found in the Framework, and the practical needs of the classroom that were addressed in first-wave documents like the Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education. As a result, we have developed a draft model of an information literacy taxonomy that accounts for both foundational information literacy skills and ways of thinking and knowing. We believe that this model has implications for how we approach the development of students’ information literacy with intentionality, in collaboration with instructors, and as we consider our own classroom teaching practices.
References
Hicks, A., & Lloyd, A. (2021). Deconstructing information literacy discourse: Peeling back the layers in higher education. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 53(4), 559–571.
Simmons, M.H. (2005). Librarians as disciplinary discourse mediators: Using genre theory to move toward critical information literacy. portal: Libraries and the Academy, 5(3), 297–311.
What Shapes Our Trust in Scientific Information? A Review of Factors Influencing Perceived Scientificness and Credibility
Maria Henkel, Armin Jacob, Lennart Perrey
ZBW Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, Kiel, Germany
Information literacy is crucial in our digitalised society, where access to information is easier and more abundant than ever before. It empowers us to locate, evaluate, and effectively, as well as ethically, use information in private and professional contexts. Without information literacy, individuals may struggle to make informed decisions or, even worse, fall prey to misinformation.
Science literacy, which we consider a part of information literacy, refers to an individual’s understanding of science and its methods, as well as their ability to critically evaluate scientific information and arguments (Liu, 2009). Science literacy is an important aspect of being an informed citizen in a democratic society, as it allows individuals to understand and engage with scientific issues that have an impact on their lives or even society as a whole (National Research Council et al., 2007, p. 34). This is especially essential during a pandemic, when misinformation can have serious consequences for public health and safety (Loomba et al., 2021).
The COVID-19 pandemic is a prime example of the importance of science literacy for everyone. The ongoing pandemic has highlighted the need for individuals to be able to critically evaluate and understand scientific information, as well as navigate the vast amount of information that is available on the internet and social media. The lack of science literacy skills can result in confusion, misinformation, and a lack of trust in scientific authorities and experts.
The concept of “scientificness” refers to the degree to which something is perceived as scientific or having characteristics of science (Thomm & Bromme, 2012). Scientificness and credibility are closely linked. People who associate a high level of scientificness with, for example, a specific style of documents are likely to rate their credibility higher as well (Zaboski & Therriault, 2020). However, something that appears to be scientific does not necessarily have to be accurate or true. In fact, a scientific appearance might be used to “claim” the categories of scientificness and credibility for something that is not: This is called pseudoscience (O’Brien et al., 2021).
Our paper focuses on perceived scientificness and credibility of information. We conducted a scoping review of scientific literature to summarise the various factors that can mislead individuals into thinking information is credible or scientific, even when it is not. Furthermore, we discuss different types and ways of emergence of scientific misinformation or pseudoscience. Critically evaluating scientific health information is a challenging task, but with the help of information literacy, it is possible to become more discerning consumers of scientific information and better equipped to make informed decisions. By understanding the various factors that can mislead us, we can then build greater resilience to misinformation and pseudoscience.
References
Liu, X. (2009). Beyond science literacy: Science and the public. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 4(3), 301–311.
Loomba, S., de Figueiredo, A., Piatek, S. J., de Graaf, K., & Larson, H. J. (2021). Measuring the impact of COVID-19 vaccine misinformation on vaccination intent in the UK and USA. Nature Human Behaviour, 5(3), 337–348. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-021-01056-1
National Research Council, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, Board on Science Education, Center for Education, Committee on Science Learning, Duschl, R. A., Schweingruber, H. A., & Shouse, A. W. (2007). Taking science to school. National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/11625
O’Brien, T. C., Palmer, R., & Albarracin, D. (2021). Misplaced trust: When trust in science fosters belief in pseudoscience and the benefits of critical evaluation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 96, 104184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2021.104184
Thomm, E., & Bromme, R. (2012). “It should at least seem scientific!” Textual features of “scientificness” and their impact on lay assessments of online information. Science Education, 96(2), 187–211. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20480
Zaboski, B. A., & Therriault, D. J. (2020). Faking science: Scientificness, credibility, and belief in pseudoscience. Educational Psychology, 40(7), 820–837. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2019.1694646
The Delphi Method in Information Literacy Research
Dijana Šobota
University of Zagreb, Croatia
Introduction
Information literacy (IL) has been one of the most extensively researched concepts within Library and Information Science (LIS), interrogated as a phenomenon and practice, through a range of methods. Numerous bibliometric studies have been conducted to map the field, and they indicate the overwhelming use of quantitative methods (e.g., Kolle, 2017). However, these mapping studies, especially until more recently, have not focused on the content of IL research, and have restricted analysis to a short time span and a narrow range of databases.
A relatively popular research method, introduced in IL research by Doyle (1992) to develop an IL definition and competence outcomes, is the Delphi method. Delphi is employed for facilitating structured group communication and soliciting expert opinions via rounds of surveys. It applies particularly well to complex issues and exploratory studies in emerging research areas, and can contribute to theory and practice. Therefore, it is well suited to IL research, including potentially to information (literacy) experience since it allows qualitative exploration of subjective judgments and individual experiences. By integrating views from different disciplines – thus bridging the theory-practice gap and silos within IL – Delphi can be beneficial to IL coherence and progress. Several studies have explored Delphi in LIS (e.g., Lund, 2020); however, they have not focused on its application to IL research.
Objectives
This research aims to develop a critical understanding of how IL research is operationalised and executed by means of the Delphi method and its current state of usage in IL research. Specifically, it seeks to determine what IL issues and which research contexts are studied using Delphi. It also explores the key characteristics of IL Delphi studies: the types of Delphi utilised; the profile and ways of recruiting experts; the number of rounds and of experts in each round; and the types of findings.
Methodology
A systematic review of IL research studies that have utilised Delphi was undertaken, using studies retrieved from five databases (Web of Science, Scopus, Library and Information Science Source, ProQuest Library and Information Science Collection, and LISTA). 799 articles were retrieved by querying the databases for peer-reviewed articles in English, with a non-defined temporal span, vetted for relevance to IL research and actual usage of Delphi. 38 articles were identified for analysis, using critical literature review and descriptive statistical analysis.
Outcomes
While Delphi is not a common research method for IL studies (averaging 2 studies per year), it was used to study various issues, including digital literacy, health IL, and IL standards, models and concepts, mainly in the contexts of education, health care and librarianship. Modified Delphi was the most common type, and information experts and information science researchers the most common populations, recruited through employment and publication in scholarly journals. Studies with 2 rounds were most frequent, averaging 17 panelists. The most common finding retrieved is competence and skill framework, followed by opinion and tool development. The paper may serve as a useful base for IL theory and practice, providing guidance for future IL research, both content- and methodology-wise.
References
Doyle, C. S. (1992). Outcome measures for information literacy within the National Education Goals of 1990. Final Report to National Forum on Information Literacy. Summary of Findings. National Forum of Information Literacy, 1–18.
Kolle, S. (2017). The electronic library global research on information literacy: A bibliometric analysis from 2005 to 2014. The Electronic Library, 35(2), 283–298.
Lund, B. D. (2020). Review of the Delphi method in library and information science research. Journal of Documentation, 76(4), 929–960.
|
