Content uploaded by Robin Holding Kay
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Robin Holding Kay on Jun 28, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
Journal of Educational Informatics (2015), 1, 1-25
Negotiating the Digital Maze of Information Literacy:
A Review of Literature
ROBIN H. KAY AND KAMRAN AHMADPOUR
University of Ontario Institute of Technology
Canada
robin.kay@uoit.ca
kamran.ahmadpour@uoit.ca
Rapid change in technology, conflicting definitions and
perspectives, and competing models make it difficult to develop a
consistent and coherent understanding of information literacy. A
comprehensive search of 50 peer-reviewed articles between 2004
and 2014 was conducted to identify major research themes in
understanding information literacy. Five key areas associated with
information literacy were reviewed, including evolutionary history,
proposed definitions, foundational learning theories, digital literacy,
and previous information literacy models. Based on a detailed
content analysis of previous research, a 4Ps framework (planning,
picking, processing, and producing) was developed and analyzed to
synthesize the results.
INTRODUCTION
Information literacy has garnered increasing interest over the past 20 years for at least
three reasons. First, the Net Generation, those individuals born between 1977 and 1997
(Tapscott, 2009), has grown up with digital technology but paradoxically appears to lack
information skills (Rockman, 2002). Second, the diversity and number of information
sources has led to cognitive overload and increased anxiety (Bawden & Robinson, 2009). As
the number of information sources increases, students’ need to develop skills to seek, access,
evaluate, manage, and use information effectively and efficiently also increases. Third,
2 Kay and Ahmadpour
information literacy has been recognized as one of the essential life, learning, and workplace
skills (Eisenberg, 2008), and, according to UNESCO, is a "basic human right in a digital world"
(Alexandria Proclamation, 2005, p. 3). Consequently, the study of information literacy has
become a very active research domain in the last two decades.
Despite the growth of literature, at least three key issues have inhibited the development
of a comprehensive, cohesive understanding of information literacy. First, existing
definitions of information literacy are either ambiguous or too narrow in focus (Bawden,
2001; O’Farrill, 2010; Saranto & Hovenga, 2004; Sundin, 2008). Second, traditional defining
characteristics of information literacy do not adequately incorporate socially networked
environments (Dunaway, 2011; Eshet, 2012; Mackey & Jacobson, 2011). Third, there are
conflicting perspectives on what is important in literacy (Elmborg, 2006), including solving
real-world problems (Doherty & Ketchner, 2005), constructivism (Lloyd, 2005, 2007, 2012;
Lloyd, Kennan, Thompson, & Oayyum, 2013), multiple literacies (Lankshear & Knobel, 2003),
and interpretation of media (Ng, 2012; Rebmann, 2013).
Previous Literature Reviews
Three previous literature reviews have been conducted in the area of information
literacy (Julien & Mckechnie, 2005; Pinto, Cordon & Diaz, 2010; Saranto & Hovenga, 2004).
Julien et al. (2005) reviewed 242 articles between 1999 and 2003 focussing on affective
variables (e.g., emotion or confidence) and information literacy. They concluded that most
researchers target information “systems” and pay little attention to affective influences.
Pinto et al. (2005) examined conceptual perceptions of information literacy, from 1977 to
2007, by examining key terms used in a wide range of databases. They reported the
following alternative terms for information literacy: information skills, library skills,
technological literacy, Internet literacy, computer literacy, and digital literacy. Finally,
Saranto & Hovenga (2004) reviewed 65 papers and 32 abstracts from 1995 to 2001 to
determine how information literacy is defined in the field of health, nursing and medical
informatics. They concluded that the term “information literacy” was not explicitly used and
is tangentially referred to as computer literacy, informatics awareness, or computer
experience.
The three literature reviews (Julien & Mckechnie, 2005; Pinto, Cordon, & Diaz, 2010;
Saranto & Hovenga, 2004), while informative, are limited in at least two ways. First, the
reviews are dated, focussing on research and perspectives from 1995 to 2007. The potential
influence of technology, which has advanced rapidly in the past 10 years, needs to be
considered when examining information literacy in today’s predominantly digital
environment. Second, the scope of these reviews is somewhat narrow, focussing on specific
parameters (e.g., affect), domains (e.g., health), or terms and definitions used to refer to the
concept of information literacy. To understand and evaluate the concept of information
literacy in a digital era, a current and more comprehensive review of the literature is
required to address a broader range of issues and domains.
3 Kay and Ahmadpour
Purpose
The purpose of the current study was to conduct an extensive review of the literature
with the intent of developing a comprehensive framework for understanding information
literacy.
METHOD
Procedure
To ensure high quality and current information, we took the following steps. First, we
selected peer-reviewed journal articles from 2004 to 2014 focussing on defining
characteristics and dimensions of information literacy. Second, after reviewing a number
of initial papers, a set of keywords emerged that was used to search titles and abstracts of
additional papers. These keywords included information literacy, digital literacy, new
literacies, information technology literacy, 21st century skills and information literacy,
information literacy, metacognitive skills, and information literacy and social skills. These
keywords were used to search both titles and abstracts. Third, we searched a variety of well-
established research databases, including Scholars Portal, EBSCO Host, EDITLib, and Google
Scholar. Fourth, we examined the reference section of all articles to locate additional
relevant references. The search process produced 50 peer-reviewed articles focussing on
two distinct domains: academic (n=36), and workplace or general life experiences (n=14).
The type of articles collected included theoretical (n=32), qualitative (n=7), survey-based
(n=5), mixed-method (n=3), and literature reviews (n=3). See Appendix A for a complete list
of the articles reviewed.
Each publication was read in detail and key points related to information literacy were
highlighted. The important points were reviewed and entered into spreadsheet with four
columns: author and year, category, sub-category, detailed comment. A category and sub-
category were assigned for each distinct point recorded for an article. These categories
emerged from articles and were continually reviewed and refined to ensure consistency.
Literature Review
Overview
Five key themes that emerged from the literature review will be addressed. First, the
evolution of information literacy will be discussed. Second, a review of information literacy
definitions will be offered. Third, key learning theories related to information literacy will
be presented. Fourth, the concept of digital literacy will be introduced and compared to
information literacy. Fifth, a detailed review of previous information literacy models will be
examined. Finally, a “4Ps” framework will be introduced and aligned with previous
information literacy models.
Evolution of Information Literacy
In 1974, Paul Zurkowski, a lawyer by profession, first coined the term "information
literacy" in a proposal submitted to the National Commission on Libraries and Information
Science (Badke, 2010; Wen & Shih, 2008):
4 Kay and Ahmadpour
People trained in the application of information resources to
their work can be called information literates. They have learned
techniques and skills for utilizing the wide range of information
tools as well as primary resources in molding information-
solutions to their problems. (Zurkowski, 1974, p. 6)
Zurkowski's emphasis was on the private sector (Bowden, 2001), and his concern was
using information skills as a problem-solving approach for workplace contexts (Pinto et al.,
2010). The next phase in the evolution of information literacy occurred within the field of
library sciences. Librarians and academics associated information literacy with
bibliographic instruction programs in the form of short orientations on how to use library
and information resources (Pinto et al., 2010).
With the advent of digital technology in the 1980s, information literacy expanded
beyond library resources to include technological literacy, information and communication
technology (ICT) literacy, digital literacy, and computer literacy (Pinto et al., 2010).
Information literacy at this stage was viewed as tool-based, with a focus on technology.
Rapid and constant advancements in information technology led to exponential
increases in information resources. Knowing how to use computers and access information
was no longer sufficient for locating and extracting relevant information from an
increasingly complex digital environment. Therefore, the need to include competencies such
as critical thinking, evaluation skills (Spiranec & Zorica, 2010) and cultural support (Pinto et
al., 2010) were more prominent when referring to information literacy.
The affective nature of information literacy was also considered as an essential
requirement (Nahl, 2001). Studies on affective aspects of information began with Kuhlthau
(1991) and continued with several others, including Julien and Mckechnie (2005), Bilal and
Bachir (2007), and Lopatovska and Mokros (2008). This trend led to a new perspective of
information literacy research and practice where the information seeker was viewed as a
whole person. For example, Matteson (2014) explored the relationship among several
constructs when determining individual information literacy scores, including cognitive
abilities, emotional intelligence, and individual perceptions.
Recently, Web 2.0 technology has begun to play an important role in information
literacy, leading to a drastic change in collaboration, communication, and sharing associated
with collecting, evaluating, and processing information. Mokhtar et al. (2009), and Spiranec
and Zorica (2010) maintain that these Web 2.0 developments have substantially altered the
social dynamic of information literacy.
Finally, education practice has influenced information literacy. Spiranec and Zorica
(2010) noted constructivism in the classroom repositioned students as creative and
reflective users of information. Farkas (2012) added that social constructivism and
connectivism in a web-based classroom promotes democratic, collaborative knowledge
construction. Nevertheless, while information literacy and educational practice are strongly
linked, Bruce (2004) views information literacy as a critical lifelong learning process that
empowers us both personally and economically.
5 Kay and Ahmadpour
In summary, the concept of information literacy has evolved and grown over time.
Initially, it was viewed as a problem-solving approach within the context of the private
sector. Then, it was conceptualized by the library sector as learning about information
sources that libraries offer. Next, it was associated with information technology, technical
skills, and databases. Information literacy further developed through the lenses of critical
thinking skills, collaboration, communication, and social practice via the web, affective
competencies, and lifelong learning.
Definitions of Information Literacy
The American Library Association [ALA] (1989) first defined information literacy as “a
set of abilities requiring individuals to recognize when information is needed and have the
ability to locate, evaluate, and use effectively the needed information” (p.1). Eisenberg
(2008), from a more academic than library-based perspective, defined information literacy
as "the set of skills and knowledge that allows us to find, evaluate, and use the information
we need, as well as to filter out the information we don’t need" (p. 39). Eisenberg's (2008)
definition is similar to that of ALA (1989), but his emphasis is more on filtering out irrelevant
information due to advancement in information technology and the complexity of the
information environment. Both of the above definitions are somewhat limited, though,
because they view information literacy as a set of skills to be achieved individually.
Bruce's (1997) relational model offered an alternative approach to defining information
literacy by highlighting the way the user perceives information literacy. She claimed that
information literacy entailed being aware of various ways of experiencing information
through pertinent practices and reflections (Bruce, 2004). Rather than offering a set of skills
or processes, Bruce (1997) presented seven ways in which one experiences information
literacy: information technology, information sources, information process, information
control, knowledge construction, knowledge extension, and wisdom experience. Learning
happens when we identify and act upon various ways of experiencing something (Bruce,
Edwards, & Lupton, 2006). Bruce's (1997) definition relies on a learner's behaviour and
perception, and, thus, is more conceptual than practical.
Tuominen, Savolainen, and Talja (2005) defined information literacy as a socio-
technical practice. They argued that information literacy was embedded in the actions of
specific communities that use socially-driven technologies. Tuominen et al.'s (2005) idea of
socio-technical practice emphasizes concepts such as collaboration, sharing, technological
artifacts, and context.
Finally, the Alexandria Proclamation, sponsored by UNESCO, viewed information
literacy as a way to “empower people in all walks of life to seek, evaluate, use and create
information effectively to achieve their personal, social, occupational and educational goals”
(Garner, 2006, p. 3). This definition was purposely designed to be all-inclusive and general,
but provides limited detail on the specific skills and acumen required to be information
literate.
Despite some similarities among various definitions, consensus on how to define
information literacy does not exist (Sundin, 2008). Mackey and Jacobson (2011) argue that
the current definitions are not comprehensive enough. Lloyd (2005) maintains that
6 Kay and Ahmadpour
information literacy contains various perspectives and practices, yet we are not able to fully
capture its depth and breadth. Specifically, information literacy has been defined mostly
through a textual (where the interaction is between an individual and a text he or she reads)
rather than a social practice (Lloyd, 2012). The continual shift in emphasis on what is
important in information literacy changes with rapid advancement in information
technology and infrastructure. Defining information literacy, then, is somewhat analogous
to aiming at a constantly-moving target.
Learning Theories and Information Literacy
The impact of three prominent learning theories (constructivism, social constructivism,
and Bloom’s taxonomy) on the shifting perspectives of information literacy will be
presented. These theories have had profound impacts on the way information literacy is
interpreted today. It is within the context of these new learning theories that information
literacy is evolving and moving beyond a set of static, generic skills and knowledge.
Constructivism. Many elements of constructivism are derived from the work of Jean
Piaget (Davis & Sumara, 2002). Key aspects of Piaget’s concept of constructivism include
individual construction of mental models and knowledge structure (Savolainen, 2009).
Learning is viewed primarily as an internal process. The individual constructivist
framework has significantly influenced the concept of information literacy in at least four
ways. First, many information literacy theorists believe individuals are active builders of
meaning and should be independent and self-sufficient (Tuominen et al., 2005). Second,
constructivism has moved information literacy beyond accounting for the external
behaviours of information seekers to actually understanding the individual’s own points of
view about their information-seeking behaviours (Sundin, 2008). Kuhlthau's (1991)
Information Search Process (ISP) model is referred to as an example of this perspective of
information literacy (Tuominen et al., 2005; Sundin, 2008). Third, the constructivist
perspective shifted the concept of information literacy away from passive knowledge
transfer toward knowledge construction and reflection (Spiranec & Zorica, 2010). This
revised perspective speaks to Savolainen’s (2009) description of information users as active
sense makers of their environment – not parts of a passive processing system (Savolainen,
2009). Finally, constructivists maintain that individuals are “engaged” if they are searching
for relevant personal goals (Jeffery et al., 2011).
Social Constructivism. Vygotsky-inspired constructivists view learning primarily as a
social process (Davis & Sumara, 2002). According to social constructivism, while the
individual mind is important in constructing meaning, social contexts, interactions, and
alternative perspectives are critical as well (Savolainen, 2009). From a social constructivist
perspective, the social-sense making process takes precedence over individual sense-
making, and emphasis is placed on communities, conversations, situations, and practices
(O`Farrill, 2010).
Traditionally, social constructivism did not play a prominent role in information literacy
– few approaches or models considered how individuals interacted with one another when
searching for and processing information (Tuominen et al., 2005). This trend, however,
started to change with the emergence of Web 2.0 technology, which transformed the
7 Kay and Ahmadpour
landscape in which individuals selected and produced information (Farkas, 2012). Since
collaboration and sharing information has become much easier, online communities of
practice have formed and some researchers have begun to investigate collaborative practice
in information literacy (Abdi, Partidge, & Bruce, 2013). Information literacy also began to
be associated with the notion of co-construction (Lloyd, 2010). These new ideas have
influenced the way information literacy is understood in workplace environments (Lloyd,
2005, 2007, 2012). With this new understanding, information is viewed from the
perspective of collaboration, social interaction, and dialogue.
Bloom’s Taxonomy. Bloom’s taxonomy, developed in the 1950s, is a set of educational
objectives presented in a learning-process hierarchy. It organizes the educational goals into
three categories: cognitive, affective, and psychomotor. The cognitive dimension receives
the most attention in information literacy. The learning hierarchy of the cognitive dimension
of Bloom’s taxonomy places knowledge at the lowest level, and increasingly gets more
complex as it moves through the levels of comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis,
and evaluation (Bloom, 1956). Bloom’s taxonomy was later revised by Anderson, Krathwohl,
and Bloom (2001) who changed the noun-based cognitive categories of Bloom (1956) into
verbal categories such as remembering, understanding, applying, analyzing, evaluating, and
creating.
Regarding information literacy, Bloom’s taxonomy or its updated version, has been used
regularly as a basis to compare information literacy skills (Andreae & Anderson 2012; Cahoy,
2010; Keene et al., 2010; Kessinger, 2013; Schroeder & Neuman, 2011; Spring, 2010).
Kessinger (2013), for example, uses the six steps of Bloom's taxonomy to devise a research
support framework to enhance information literacy skills of undergraduate students. Spring
(2010) compares Bloom's taxonomy and the seven pillars model of Society of College,
National and University Libraries (SCONUL) in the UK to provide an evidence-based
approach in teaching and understanding information literacy.
Digital Literacy
A review of research on digital literacy suggests that it is closely connected to the
concept of information literacy. Some authors have suggested that digital literacy generally
refers to a set of technical skills (Bawden, 2001). Others have argued that digital literacy
extends beyond the technical domain. Gilster (1997), for example, defined digital literacy as
"the ability to understand and use information in multiple formats from a wide range of
sources when it is presented via computers" (p.1). Gilster's (1997) definition had much in
common with key features of information literacy. He emphasized that digital literacy was
not about digital or technical components but about the ideas that we master. Mackey and
Jacobson (2011) added that digital literacy refers to critical thinking and not just learning
technical skills.
Eshet-Alkalai (2004) provides a comprehensive approach to digital literacy by
articulating five sub-categories including photo-visual literacy, reproduction literacy,
information literacy, branching literacy, and socio-emotional literacy. Photo-visual literacy
refers to the ability to read visual representations of the digital environment, incorporating
text, sound, images, and symbols. Reproduction literacy signifies the ability to create and
8 Kay and Ahmadpour
reproduce knowledge from the existing rich information environment. Information literacy
focuses on the ability to access, find, and evaluate information coming from a large number
of sources. Branching literacy looks at hypermedia and the ability we need to navigate in the
interactive and non-linear world of hypermedia. Finally, social and emotional literacy refers
to one’s ability to behave appropriately in cyberspace.
Bawden (2001) put forth a thorough understanding of digital literacy by compiling an
extensive list of required skills based on Gilster's (1997) anecdotal description of digital
literacy, including critical thinking, reading comprehension, knowledge assembly, online
searching, problem solving , communication and online publishing, and awareness of online
social resources. Both Eshet-Alkalai (2004) and Bawden (2001) provide detailed metrics
that blur the distinction between digital and information literacy.
Several theorists have attempted to address the considerable overlap between the
concepts of information literacy and digital literacy. Mackey and Jacobson (2011) suggest
that digital literacy only applies to activities that occur within a digital environment, whereas
information literacy can apply to activities that may not include technologies. However, in
the 21st century, most, if not all information is available or stored in a digital format, so
Mackey and Jacobson’s (2011) distinction may not be applicable (Spiranec & Zorica, 2010).
One possible way to distinguish information and digital literacy is to determine the focal
point of reference. When the focal point is finding and using information, digital literacy is a
subcomponent that helps support this process in a predominantly digital environment.
However, other necessary skills such critical thinking, problem solving, communication,
social awareness, and collaboration are required (Bruce , 2004; Farkas, 2012; Lopatovska &
Mokros, 2008; Spiranec & Zorica, 2010). When the focal point is learning to use digital
technology, information literacy, as Eshet-Alkalai (2004) suggests, is a subcomponent that
can support the process of understanding and acquiring new skills. However, there is a wide
range of digital skills that go beyond information literacy, including visual, reproduction,
branching, and socio-emotional skills (Eshet-Alkalai, 2004).
Previous Information Literacy Models
Several key researchers have developed information literacy models (Eisenberg &
Berkowitz, 1990; Kuhlthau, 1991; Neuman, 2011). This review will examine the models that
have been used and referred to the most in educational contexts: Eisenberg & Berkowitz’
(1990) “Big Six Model,” Kuhlthau's (1991) “Information Search Process (ISP)” model, and
Neuman's (2011) “I-LEARN model.”
The Big Six Model. A widely recognized model of information literacy, particularly in K-
12 education, is the Big Six Skills model developed almost 25 years ago by Eisenberg and
Berkowitz (1990). The Big Six model offers a systematic framework for using information
to solve problems and consists of six stages:
defining the problem and information requirements (task definition);
establishing and prioritizing information seeking strategies (information seeking
strategies);
finding sources and information (location and access);
9 Kay and Ahmadpour
engaging and extracting information (information use);
organising and presenting information (synthesis, and evaluation); and
judging the process and product of information seeking (evaluation).
Eisenberg (2008) emphasized three essential components for successful learning and
teaching of information literacy: the information process, technology, and real needs.
According to Eisenberg (2008), the information process gives students a structure so that
they know where they are in their problem-solving journey. The technology presents
students with the focus and flexibility to develop their specific information skills. Finally,
real needs make information literacy relevant and transferable to students. It is only through
integrating technology skills with the information problem solving process and real-life
needs that effective information skills can be developed. The Big Six model is not context
sensitive and therefore it is applicable to a variety of settings.
Some scholars find the Big Six model too restrictive with respect to recent changes and
issues in technology and information. Mokhtar et al. (2009) proposed three additional
elements to Eisenberg and Berkowitz' (1990) Big Six model: collaborative information
seeking behaviour, attitudes and perceptions, and ethics and social responsibility. They
argued that with the emergence of Web 2.0 and social networking services, the
characteristics of the information seeking process are far more interactive and collaborative.
Mokhtar et al. (2009) emphasized motivation, self-efficacy, and respect for various opinions
as essential elements for becoming information literate. They also consider ethics and social
responsibility as helpful components so that individuals become more than just information
literate, but responsible users of information.
The Information Search Process (ISP) Model. The Information Search Process (ISP)
model (Kuhlthau, 1991), proposed almost 25 years ago, divides information searching into
six steps:
initiation, or recognizing an information need (initiation),
identifying a general topic and how to proceed (selection),
exploration of the general topic and possible confusion (exploration),
formulation of a specific focus (formulation);
collection, or gathering of relevant information (collection); and
summarize and report information (search closure).
Kuhlthau’s (1991) model incorporates three areas: the physical (actual actions taken),
the affective (feelings experienced during the search process), and the cognitive (thoughts
concerning both process and content). Kuhlthau's (1991) focus on the affective component
of information literacy is unique. She maintains that underdeveloped affective skills are
barriers to the information seeking process (Cahoy, 2013). In examining the affective
aspects of the model, Kuhlthau, Heinstrom and Todd (2008) tracked nine feelings through
their data collection: confidence, disappointment, relief, frustration, confusion, optimism,
uncertainty, satisfaction, and anxiety.
10 Kay and Ahmadpour
The I-LEARN Model. The I-LEARN model, recently proposed by Neuman (2011), is
similar to the Big Six (Eisenberg & Berkowitz , 1990) and ISP (Kuhlthau, 1991) models in
that it provides a set of skills or processes to describe information literacy. The letters of the
term I-LEARN signify six stages including
activating a sense of curiosity, scanning the environment, and formulating a question
or problem (Identify);
locating the needed information through focusing on what is to be learned, finding
the candidate information needed, and extracting the most relevant information
(Locate);
evaluating information through questioning its authority, relevance, and timeliness
(Evaluate);
applying that information through generating new understanding, organizing that
information-based understanding and communicating that new understanding in a
usable way (Apply);
reflecting on the process and product of learning through analyzing, revising and
refining (Reflect);
knowing what is learned through internalizing it, personalizing it, and activating it in
the future (Know)
According to Neuman (2011), in a library setting, what matters more is how to access
various resources and how to evaluate them based on our identified need. He particularly
emphasized the concept of learning; the main reason why information is sought in the first
place is learning. He noted that other models influenced by library science concentrated
more on the information seeking process than on learning.
The 4Ps Framework
For the purpose of this review, four new terms are proposed to summarize the core
processes of information literacy: planning, picking, processing and producing. The primary
intent of the 4Ps framework is to (a) compare previous models and relevant discourses of
information literacy and (b) to establish an updated perspective that incorporates key
parameters from the digital world (see Table 1). The processes in the 4Ps framework are
considered non-linear because a shift may happen from one process to another and back at
any time depending on the information attained and processed. The non-linear nature of the
4Ps framework will be discussed in more detail after each process is examined.
11 Kay and Ahmadpour
Table 1
Comparison between models of Information Literacy
4Ps
Big 6 Model
Information Search
Process Model
ILEARN Model
Planning
Task Definition
Define problem
Identify Information
Needed
Initiation
Recognizing
information need
Selection
Identify topic and how
to proceed
Identify
Activate, Scan,
Formulate
Picking
Information Seeking
Determine range of
sources
Prioritize Sources
Location & Access
Locate Sources
Find information
Use of Information
Engage (read, view)
Extract relevant
information
Exploration
investigate information
on the general topic
Collection
collection, or gathering
of relevant information
Locate
Focus, Find, Extract
Processing
Evaluation
Judge the product
Judge the process
Exploration
confusion during
exploration process
Formulation
formulation of a
specific focus
Evaluate
Authority, Relevance,
Timelines
Reflect
Analyze, Revise, Refine
Know
Internalize, Personalize,
Activate
Producing
Synthesis
Organize from
multiple sources
Present information
Search Closure
summarize and report
information
Apply
Generate, Organize,
Communicate
Reflect
Revise, Refine
Planning. The first P in the 4Ps framework represents information planning. One of the
earliest steps in information literacy is establishing what information is needed based on a
problem and planning ahead. Information seekers plan what information they need to find
and assess their progress accordingly (Gorrell, Eaglestone, Ford, Holdridge, & Madden,
2009). To plan ahead, learners need to understand the topic or problem at hand and predict
the possible solutions. However, goals and plans keep changing as the information seeker
12 Kay and Ahmadpour
strives for answers or solutions and does not find them. In addition, key issues and even the
original problem may change as more information is gathered and digested. All three
previous models fully articulated this process under the labels of task definition (Eisenberg
& Berkowitz, 1990; Eisenberg, 2008), initiation (Kuhlthau, 1991) and identifying (Neuman,
2011) (see Table 1). However, the need for developing a detailed and well-formed plan may
not be as critical as it was 25 years ago when the Big Six and ISP models were first articulated.
Access to digitally stored information is rapid and might lead to a more trial and error
approach to information seeking. In addition, changes in problem, key issues, and focus may
occur more quickly than it did in the past, due to the volume of and perspectives on
information that can be gleaned in a digital environment.
Picking. The second P in the 4Ps framework stands for picking. We can pick or select
information individually via text (print/digital), physical senses (observing/ hearing) or
while collaborating with other individuals in a particular context. Wilder (2005) noted that
one of the flaws in the current concept of information literacy is that it leads individuals to
seek or search relevant information, whereas the real challenge today is in finding high
quality and relevant information among the wealth of digital resources available. Similarly,
an important part of information literacy, according to Beeson (2006), is to be able to judge
found information based on the searcher’s plans and goals with acceptable speed and
accuracy.
The Big Six model devotes three stages to the picking process including information
seeking, location and access and use of information (Eisenberg & Berkowitz, 1990;
Eisenberg, 2008). The ISP model describes this process as exploring and collecting
information (Kuhlthau, 1991) while emphasizing the affect components such as uncertainty,
optimism, confusion, and confidence. The I-Learn model narrows this process down to
focussing, finding and extracting (Neuman, 2011). All three perspectives add considerable
depth to the picking or selecting process (see Table 1), however, they do not allow for the
complexities and nuances of a digital environment. For example, having effective searching
and seeking information skills is a major part of being information literate, but information
literacy in a digital landscape does not always require us to search. New technology tools
such as RSS web feeds delivers relevant information directly to our computers.
Furthermore, since the advances in information retrieval have made searching and accessing
information easier than ever, the term “pick” requires higher-order skills such as evaluating
the validity and relevance of information we select. Finally, it is important to note that while
picking information in the past was often an individual process, the plethora of digital
communication tools increases the likelihood that the selection process is indirectly or
directly collaborative. In other words, the picking of resources is more than likely to be
influenced by the readily available opinions, suggestions, and guidance of other individuals.
Processing. The third P in the 4Ps framework is processing. Both cognitive
constructivism and information processing approaches view information as being processed
and interpreted in our minds (Savolainen, 2009). Processing of information through critical
thinking and evaluation is necessary to adapt to the 21st century rich digital information
landscape. From the perspective of constructivism, the emphasis is in constructing one's
own meaning (Savolainen, 2009). Information processing is an indispensable element of
13 Kay and Ahmadpour
decision making, which is often a significant reason why we search for information in the
first place.
All three models of information literacy include a processing element, although
overlap with the picking process, as described above, is evident (see Table 1). Eisenberg &
Berkowitz (1990) see processing as judging the product and reflecting on the process of
searching. Kuhlthau (1991) points to exploration and formulation with an eye toward the
affective reactions of the individual searching for information. Neuman (2011) discusses
processing in considerable detail in his model by looking at evaluating the quality of
information, reflecting on and analyzing the information, and internalizing the information
gathered.
Perhaps the most noticeable omission in the three previous models is the social-
collaborative process of using and digesting information in a digital world. The range of
information tools available such as video, blogs, tweets, wiki, and social networking posts
(Mackey & Jacobson, 2011) can shift processing from an exclusive, individual constructivist
process, to a social constructivist process (O`Farrill, 2010; Savolainen, 2009). While
information may eventually be cognitively digested and processed by the individual mind,
the pathway to that processing is much different than it was 25 years ago. Multiple inputs
from many individuals and perspectives, which is characteristic of the digital world,
inevitably alters the manner in which information is processed.
Producing. The fourth P in the 4Ps framework stands for producing. In previous
decades, the most frequent forms of presenting information were written documents
(Mackey & Jacobson, 2011). Relatively few individuals were able to formally publish and
present their work. This picture has changed markedly in the 21st century. Web 2.0 has
made it possible to readily and easily present information on a global scale through various
formats such as videos, blog entries, tweets, social networking sites, websites, and wikis
(Bawden, 2007; Eshet, 2012; Mills, 2010; Mackey & Jacobson, 2011; Ng, 2012; Spiranec &
Zorica, 2010). User-generated information can be produced individually or in collaboration
with others due to the affordances of participatory technologies. Wikipedia is but one
example of how Web 2.0 tools have altered the way that information is produced
collaboratively (Dunaway, 2011). All three previous models of information include a
production component including synthesis (Eisenberg & Berkowitz, 1990; Eisenberg, 2008),
search closure (Kuhlthau, 1991) and communicating knowledge (Neuman, 2011). These
models, however, refer to more formal printed production and do not take into account the
wide variety of easy-to-use presentation formats available in the digital age (see Table 1).
Dynamics of 4Ps Framework
At first, the 4Ps framework, like previous models of information literacy, appears to flow
in a linear fashion from one stage to another. The information seeker forms a search plan
based on a problem, enacts that plan by locating and selecting needed information, processes
this information to determine accuracy, quality, and meaning, and finally uses the
information to produce a digital product. However, at least four key features of a digital
environment precipitates non-linear interactions within the 4Ps framework.
14 Kay and Ahmadpour
First, the speed with which information can be gathered or automatically sent can
catalyze rapid cycling among planning, picking, and processing. For example, planning is
quickly altered by new, unexpected information selected or by critical analysis of
information based on multiple perspectives in the processing stage.
Second, the enormous volume of information available in the digital world can rapidly
alter search plans and picking strategies based on an inability to process the quagmire of
data. Users need to be able to scale back the scope of planning and problems addressed,
modify picking strategies, refine processing, and revise production when the range and
breadth of information is too large. If the information seeker is not willing or able to nimbly
jump among planning, picking, processing and producing, the effectiveness of any one stage
could be severally limited by information overload.
Third, the nature of social interaction in Web 2.0 through the multitude of social media
available can quickly alter plans, picking strategies, the quality of processing or the
production of a final product causing the information seekers to revisit any one of the 4P
stages.
Finally, the availability of easy-to-use, high quality, production tools can lead to rapid
cycling among planning, picking, processing and producing. Information seekers can pursue
this type of trial and error approach in the 4Ps framework. A plan can be developed based
on a problem. Information is quickly found, selected, and processed. Finally a product is
produced and evaluated by the individual and the social network. If significant concerns or
problems are noted, the information seekers can start the information literacy cycle again
Figure 1
The 4Ps Framework of Information Literacy
15 Kay and Ahmadpour
Summary and Implications
After reviewing 50 peer-reviewed scholarly papers on information and digital literacy
in the last decade, from 2004 to 2014, the results reveal that digital information literacy
entails a number of complex knowledge, skills, and dispositions than had not previously been
envisioned. Six critical themes about information literacy were addressed in this review:
evolution, proposed definitions, foundational learning theories, new literacies, digital
literacy, and previous information literacy models.
Information literacy has progressed through at least five stages starting as a problem-
solving approach in business (Zurkowski, 1974), moving toward user education in a library
context (Pinto et al., 2010), merging with technological and communication literacy (Pinto
et al., 2010), returning to an expanded and more detailed version of problem solving
incorporating critical thinking and evaluation skills (Spiranec & Zorica, 2010), and recently
embracing communication and collaboration elements (Mokhtar et al., 2009). It is worth
considering unanticipated aspects of technology when predicting future stages of evolution.
For example, the rapid pace or “twitch-speed” at which technology is consumed (e.g.,
Prensky, 2012) might significantly reduce the time spent in planning, picking, processing and
producing information and thereby altering the extent to which individuals use higher level
thinking skills such a critical thinking, evaluation, and collaboration. Related to twitch speed
are changes in reading habits of a new generation of information consumers weaned on the
Internet (e.g., Carr, 2011). Passages the length of a screen or less (and that screen is
becoming smaller) are now perceived as the optimal limit of consumption. A shift in the
propensity to read could have a marked impact on the processing of information proposed
in the 4Ps framework.
Proposed definitions of information have varied considerably. A number of researchers
maintain that these definitions have not adequately adjusted to new understanding of
knowledge in a digital environment (Makey & Jacobson, 2011; Sundin, 2008). Establishing
a clear, concrete, relatively stable definition of information literacy may be unattainable
because of the rapidly changing parameters in ICT and the digital world. Perhaps the best
one can do is create a schema like the 4Ps framework (planning, picking, processing and
producing) to identify a general set of defining characteristics.
Three learning theories appear to have played a significant role in the domain of
information literacy: constructivism (e.g., Kuhlthau, 1991; Savolainen, 2009; Tuominen,
2005), social constructivism (e.g., Abdi et al., 2013; Farkas, 2012; O’Farrill, 2010) and
Bloom’s Taxonomy (e.g., Andrae & Anderson, 2012; Kessinger, 2013; Spring, 2010).
However, at least three other perspectives may be influential in the future: problem-based
learning (Boud & Feletti, 1997), communities of practice (Wenger, 2002), and connectivism
(Siemens, 2005). All three fall in the social constructivist domain but address the digital
environment by focussing on communication, collaboration, and open-ended problems that
are better addressed by communities than the individual.
The notions of multi- and new literacies (Lankshear & Knobel, 2003; Ng, 2012) has re-
focused information literacy from an individual endeavour to a social-collaborative process
16 Kay and Ahmadpour
requiring proficiency in a number of modalities to succeed in a digital environment with
constantly changing social contexts and an abundance of information .
Digital and information literacy appear to be inextricably linked. The skills needed to
become competent in a digital world are often the same skills that are needed to be proficient
at planning to find, picking, processing, and producing information. Similarly the skills
required in digital literacy overlap with those required in information literacy. .
The Big Six (Esienberg & Berkowitz, 1990), ISP (Kuhlthau, 1991), and I-LEARN
(Neuman, 2001) models provide a solid foundation for understanding information literacy.
The 4Ps framework helps organize and compare different components of these models
(Table 1) and provides an updated perspective incorporating the influence of digital tools
and collaboration. The 4Ps framework also supports the idea of non-linear interactions
among planning, picking, processing and producing (Figure 1).
Digital technologies have substantially altered the nature of interactions among various
information literacy components. Picking is aided by a wealth of databases and supporting
tools, but it is also hindered by potential excess of information that needs to be evaluated
and digested. Producing is facilitated by a wealth of organizational, easy-to-use tools that
help disseminate information quickly and broadly in a wide range of alternative formats
including wikis, websites, video podcasts and open-access journals (Mills, 2010).
Finally, it is worth noting that 70% of the articles reviewed for this paper are theoretical.
While it is critical to consider the theoretical and philosophical perspectives of information
literacy, empirical research is needed to back this theory with evidence. Key questions that
need to be investigated in more detail include:
1. What are the key skills and abilities that have a significant impact on the
informational literacy process?
2. How does digital literacy interact with information literacy in real-world settings?
3. How do key components of the 4Ps framework interact in practice?
4. How are the key components of information literacy fundamentally changed by
the use of technology?
17 Kay and Ahmadpour
References
American Library Association (198). Presidential committee on information literacy - Final
report. Chicago: American Library Association. Retrieved from
http://www.ala.org/acrl/publications/whitepapers/presidential
Abdi, E. S., Partridge, H., & Bruce, C. (2013). Website designers: How do they experience
information literacy? The Australian Library Journal, 62 (1), 40-52. doi:
10.1080/00049670.2013.771767
Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R., & Bloom, B. S. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching,
and assessing: A revision of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives. Boston, MA:
Allyn & Bacon.
Andreae, J., & Anderson, E. L. (2012). Re-conceptualizing access: The new role of information
literacy in post-secondary education. Communications in Information Literacy, 5(2), 74-
81.
Badke, W. (2010). Foundations of information literacy: Learning from Paul Zurkowski.
Online, 34(1), 48-50.
Bawden, D. (2001). Information and digital literacies: A review of concepts. Journal of
Documentation, 57(2), 218-259. doi:10.1108/EUM0000000007083
Bawden, D. (2007). Towards Curriculum 2.0: library/information education for a Web 2.0
world. Library and information Research, 31(99), 14-25.
Bawden, D., & Robinson, L. (2009). The dark side of information: Overload, anxiety and other
paradoxes and pathologies. Journal of Information Science, 35(2), 180-191.
doi:10.1177/0165551508095781
Beeson, I. (2006). Judging relevance: a problem for e-literacy. Innovation in Teaching and
Learning in Information and Computer Sciences, 5(4), 210-219. doi:
10.11120/ital.2006.05040210
Bilal, D., & Bachir, I. (2007). Children's interaction with cross-cultural and multilingual digital
libraries. II. Information seeking, success, and affective experience. Information
Processing and Management, 43(1), 65-80. doi:10.1016/j.ipm.2006.05.008
Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives. Vol. 1: Cognitive domain. New York:
McKay.
Boud, D., & Feletti, G. (1997). The challenge of problem-based learning (2nd ed.). London:
Kogan Page.
Bruce, C.S. (1997). The seven faces of information literacy. Adelaide: Auslib Press.
Bruce, C. S. (2004). Information literacy as a catalyst for educational change. A background
paper. Lifelong learning: whose responsibility and what is your contribution? 3rd
International Lifelong Learning Conference, Yeppoon, Queensland, Australia.
Bruce, C., Edwards, S., & Lupton, M. (2006). Six frames for information literacy education: A
conceptual framework for interpreting the relationships between theory and practice.
Innovation in Teaching and Learning in Information and Computer Sciences, 5(1), 1-18.
doi:10.11120/ital. 2006.05010002
Bruce, C. (2008). Informed learning. Chicago: College and Research Libraries, American
Library Association.
18 Kay and Ahmadpour
Cahoy, E. (2013). Affective learning and personal information management: essential
components of information literacy. Communications in Information Literacy, 7(2), 146-
149.
Carr, N (2011). What the Internet is doing to our brains: The shallows. New York: W.W. Norton
& Company, Inc.
Davis, B., & Sumara, D. (2002). Constructivist discourses and the field of education: Problems
and possibilities. Educational Theory, 52(4), 409. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-
5446.2002.00409.x
Doherty, J. J., & Ketchner, K. (2005). Empowering the intentional learner: A critical theory for
information literacy instruction. Library Philosophy and Practice, 8(1), 1-8.
Dunaway, M. (2011). Web 2.0 and critical information literacy. Public Services Quarterly, 7(3-
4), 149-157. doi:10.1080/15228959.2011.622628
Eisenberg, M. B., & Berkowitz, R. E. (1990). Information problem-solving: the Big Six Skills
approach to library & information skills instruction. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Eisenberg, M. (2008). Information literacy: Essential skills for the information age. DESIDOC.
Journal of Library & Information Technology, 28(2), 39-47. doi: 10.14429/djlit.28.2.166
Elmborg, J. (2006). Critical information literacy: Implications for instructional practice. The
Journal of Academic Librarianship, 32(2), 192-199. doi:10.1016/j.acalib.2005.12.004
Eshet-Alkalai, Y. (2004). Digital literacy: A conceptual framework for survival skills in the
digital era. Journal of Educational Multimedia & Hypermedia, 13(1), 93-106.
Eshet, Y. (2012). Thinking in the digital era: A revised model for digital literacy. Issues in
Informing Science & Information Technology, 9, 267-273. Retrieved from
http://iisit.org/Vol9/IISITv9p267-276Eshet021.pdf
Farkas, M. (2012). Participatory technologies, pedagogy 2.0 and information literacy. Library
Hi Tech, 30(1), 82-94. doi:10.1108/07378831211213229
Garner, S. D. (2006). High-level colloquium on information literacy and lifelong learning.
Bibliotheca Alexandrina, Alexandria, Egypt. Retrieved from
http://www.ifla.org/files/assets/information-literacy/publications/high-level-
colloquium-2005.pdf
Gilster, P. (1997). Digital Literacy. New York: Wiley Computer Publishing.
Gorrell, G., Eaglestone, B., Ford, N., Holdridge, P., & Madden, A. (2009). Towards
"metacognitively aware" IR systems: An initial user study. Journal of Documentation,
65(3), 446-469. doi:10.1108/00220410910952429
Jeffrey, L., Hegarty, B., Kelly, O., Penman, M., Coburn, D., & McDonald, J. (2011). Developing
digital information literacy in higher education: obstacles and supports. Journal of
Information Technology Education: Research, 10(1), 383-413.
Jones, K. (2007). Connecting social technologies with information literacy. Journal of Web
Librarianship, 1(4), 67-80. doi:10.1080/19322900802111429
Julien, H., McKechnie, L. E. F., & Hart, S. (2005). Affective issues in library and information
science systems work: A content analysis. Library and Information Science Research,
27(4), 453-466. doi:10.1016/j.lisr.2005.08.004
Keene, J., Colvin, J., & Sissons, J. (2010). Mapping student information literacy activity against
Bloom’s Taxonomy of cognitive skills. Journal of Information Literacy, 4(1), 6-21. doi:
10.11645/4.1.189
19 Kay and Ahmadpour
Kessinger, P. (2013). Integrated instruction framework for information literacy. Journal of
Information Literacy, 7(2), 33-59. doi:10.11645/7.2.1807
Kuhlthau, C. C. (1991). Inside the search process: Information seeking from the user's
perspective. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 42(5), 361-371.
Kuhlthau, C. C., Heinström, J., & Todd, R. J. (2008). The 'information search process' revisited:
is the model still useful? Information Research, 13(4). Retrieved from
http://www.informationr.net/ir/13-4/paper355.html
Lankshear, C. & Knobel, M. (2003). New literacies: Changing knowledge and classroom
learning. Buckingham, UK: Open University Pres.
Lankshear, C., & Knobel, M. (2011). New literacies. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill
Lloyd, A. (2005). Information literacy. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science,
37(2), 82-88. doi:10.1177/0961000605055355
Lloyd, A. (2007). Learning to put out the red stuff: Becoming information literate through
discursive practice. The Library Quarterly, 77(2), 181-198.
Lloyd, A. (2010). Framing information literacy as information practice: Site ontology and
practice theory. Journal of Documentation, 66(2), 245-258.
doi:10.1108/00220411011023643
Lloyd, A. (2012). Information literacy as a socially enacted practice: Sensitising themes for
an emerging perspective of people-in-practice. Journal of Documentation, 68(6), 772-
783. doi:10.1108/00220411211277037
Lloyd, A., Kennan, M. A., Thompson, K. M., & Qayyum, A. (2013). Connecting with new
information landscapes: Information literacy practices of refugees. Journal of
Documentation, 69(1), 121-144. doi:10.1108/00220411311295351
Lopatovska, I., & Mokros, H. B. (2008). Willingness to pay and experienced utility as
measures of affective value of information objects: Users’ accounts.Information
processing & management, 44(1), 92-104. Doi:10.1016/j.imp/2007.01.020
Mackey, T. R., & Jacobson, T. E. (2011). Reframing information literacy as a metaliteracy.
College & Research Libraries, 72(1), 62-78.
Matteson, M. L. (2014). The whole student: Cognition, emotion, and information literacy.
College & Research Libraries, 75(6), 862-877. doi:10.5860/crl.75.6.862
Mills, K. (2010). A review of the “Digital turn” in the new literacy studies. Review of
Educational Research, 80(2), 246-271. doi:10.3102/0034654310364401
Mokhtar, I. A., Foo, S., Majid, S., Yin, L. T., Luyt, B., & Yun-Ke Chang. (2009). Proposing a 6+3
model for developing information literacy standards for schools: A case for Singapore.
Education for Information, 27(2), 81-101. doi:10.3233/EFI-2009-0877
Morgan, P. K. (2014). Information literacy learning as epistemological process. Reference
Service Review, 42(3), 403-413. doi:10.1108/RSR-04-2014-0005
Nahl, D. (2001). A conceptual framework for explaining information behavior. Studies in
Media & Information Literacy Education, 1(2). Retrieved from
http://www2.hawaii.edu/~donnab/lis610/nahl_2001.html
Neuman, D. (2011). Learning in information-rich environments: I-LEARN and the construction
of knowledge in the 21st century. New York, NY: Springer
Ng, W. (2012). Can we teach digital natives digital literacy? Computers & Education, 59(3)
1065-1078. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2012.04.016
20 Kay and Ahmadpour
O'Farrill, R. T. (2010). Information literacy and knowledge management at work:
Conceptions of effective information use at NHS24. Journal of Documentation, 66(5),
706-733. doi:10.1108/00220411011066808
Pinto, M., Cordón, J., & Gómez Díaz, R. (2010). Thirty years of information literacy (1977—
2007). Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 42(1), 3-19.
doi:10.1177/0961000609345091
Prensky, 2012. From digital natives to digital wisdom. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Rebmann, K. (2013). A review of literacy frameworks for learning environments design.
Learning Environments Research, 16(2), 239-257. doi:10.1007/s10984-013-9132-z
Rockman, I. F. (2002). Strengthening connections between information literacy, general
education, and assessment efforts. Library Trends, 51(2), 185-198.
Saranto, K., & Hovenga, E. J. S. (2004). Information literacy—what it is about? International
Journal of Medical Informatics, 73(6), 503-513. doi: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2004.03.002
Savolainen, R. (2009). Information use and information processing. Journal of
Documentation, 65(2), 187-207. doi:10.1108/00220410910937570
Schroeder, R. & Cahoy, E. S.(2010). Valuing information literacy: Affective learning and the
ACRL standards. Libraries and the Academy 10(2), 127-146. doi: 10.1353/pla.0.0096
Siemens, G. (2005). Connectivism: A learning theory for the ages. International Journal of
Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 2(1), 3-10.
Spring, H. (2010). Learning and teaching in action. Health Information and Libraries Journal,
27, 327-331, doi: 10.1111/j.1471-1842.2010.00911.x
Špiranec, S., & Zorica, M. B. (2010). Information literacy 2.0: Hype or discourse refinement?
Journal of Documentation, 66(1), 140-153. doi:10.1108/00220411011016407
Sundin, O. (2008). Negotiations on information-seeking expertise. Journal of Documentation,
64(1), 24-44. doi:10.1108/00220410810844141
Tapscott, D. (2009). Grown up digital: How the net generation is changing your world. New
York: McGraw-Hill.
Tuominen, K., Savolainen, R., & Talja, S. (2005). Information literacy as a sociotechnical
practice. The Library, 75(3), 329-345.
Wen, J. R., & Shih, W. L. (2008). Exploring the information literacy competence standards for
elementary and high school teachers. Computers & Education, 50(3), 787-806. doi:
10.1016/j.compedu.2006.08.011
Wenger, E. (2002). Cultivating communities of practice. Boston: Harvard Business Review
Press.
Wilder, S. (2005). Information literacy makes all the wrong assumptions. Chronicle of Higher
Education, 51(18), B13.
Williamson, K. (2006). Research in constructivist frameworks using ethnographic
techniques. Library Trends, 55(1), 83-101. doi: 10.1353/lib.2006.0054
Zurkowski, P. (1974). The Information Service Environment: Relationships and Priorities.
Washington DC: National Commission on Libraries and Information Science, ERIC
Clearinghouse on Information Resources. ED 100391. Retrieved from
http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED100391.pdf
21 Kay and Ahmadpour
Appendix A – List of Articles Reviewed
Authors
Population
Type
Description
Abdi et al., 2013
Workplace
Qualitative
Maps variation in experiencing the phenomenon of information literacy
from the viewpoint of website designers.
Andreae & Anderson, 2012
Academic
Theoretical
Proposes a new conceptual model where information literacy plays a vital
role in understanding and using information.
Badke, 2010
Academic
Theoretical
Discusses why information literacy should be emphasized more in higher
education.
Bawden & Robinson, 2009
Academic
Theoretical
Reviewed key issues regarding the communication of information including
overload and anxiety.
Bawden, 2007
Academic
Theoretical
Reports an international comparison of changes in library/information
curricula.
Beeson, 2006
Academic
Theoretical
Considers how information can be judged relevant, and what information
literacy means in the context of the Web.
Bilal & Bachir, 2007
Academic
Mixed
Investigates Arabic-speaking children’s interaction with the International
Children’s Digital Library (ICDL).
Bruce, 2004
Academic
Theoretical
Reviewed key models of information literacy in the education
Bruce, 2008
Academic
Theoretical
Proposes the need for teaching and learning to bring about new ways of
experiencing and using information.
Bruce et al. (2006)
Academic
Theoretical
Proposes the Six Frames for Information Literacy Education.
Cahoy, 2013
Academic
Theoretical
Proposes that we must approach information literacy as an emotional and
ultimately rewarding process.
Chang, et al.,2012
Academic
Survey
TA study examining the information literacy level of secondary school
students in Singapore
22 Kay and Ahmadpour
Doherty & Ketchner, 2005
Academic
Theoretical
Presents critically grounded theory of information literacy instruction.
Dunaway, 2011
Workplace
Theoretical
Argues that Web 2.0 presents challenges to librarians through positioning
students as active creators of knowledge rather than passive consumers.
Eisenberg, 2008
Academic
Theoretical
Overview of IL focusing on three contexts for successful IL: information
process, technology in context, and implementation of real needs.
Elmborg, 2006
Academic
Theoretical
Uses critical literacy theory to define information literacy and argues that
librarians must focus on developing critical consciousness in students.
Eshet, 2012
Academic
Theoretical
Presents an updated version of the skills-based theoretical framework,
adding to it a sixth skill (real-time thinking skill)
Eshet-Alkalai, 2004
Academic
Theoretical
Proposes new conceptual framework of digital literacy that includes
photovisual, reproduction, information, branching and socio-emotional
literacy.
Farkas, 2012
Academic
Theoretical
Explores the impact participatory technologies have had on education and
the information environment in which students operate.
Gorrell et al., 2008
Academic
Survey
Describes a new taxonomy of metacognitive skills designed to support the
study of metacognition in the context of web searching.
Jeffery et al., 2011
Academic
Mixed
Identifies obstacles and supports that influence the development of digital
information literacy in staff and students in the tertiary education sector.
Jones 2007
Academic
Theoretical
Explores social technologies and suggests they could build higher-order
thinking skills outlined in various IL frameworks, particularly in an
educational context.
Julien et al., 2005
Academic
Review
Reviews systems work in library and information science
to determine the relative interest in affective issues being shown.
Keene et al., 2010
Academic
Theoretical
Introduces framework of information literacy which maps the activities that
students undertake against Bloom’s taxonomy of cognitive skills.
Kessinger, 2013
Academic
Qualitative
Case study about how a model for a developmental approach to IL was
initiated at a large American undergraduate institution.
23 Kay and Ahmadpour
Kuhlthau, et al., 2008
Academic
Mixed
Discusses the users' perspective of information seeking.
Lloyd et al., 2013
General Life
Qualitative
Examines how refugees learn to engage with a complex, multimodal
information landscape.
Lloyd, 2005
Workplace
Qualitative
Explored the meaning and role of information literacy among a specific
group of workers – firefighters.
Lloyd, 2007
Workplace
Qualitative
Supports new definition of information literacy that recognizes information
literacy as a way of knowing and more just the acquisition of skills and
attributes.
Lloyd, 2010
Workplace
Theoretical
Explores information literacy as sociocultural practice.
Lloyd, 2012
Workplace
Theoretical
Introduces a shift in focus from information literacy skills towards
information literacy as a socially enacted practice.
Lopatovska & Mokros,
2008
Workplace
Theoretical
Discusses two measures of affective value of information objects:
Willingness-to-Pay (WTP) and Experienced Utility (EU).
Mackey & Jacobson, 2011
Academic
Theoretical
Introduces meta-literacy framework focusing on producing and sharing
information not just searching for information.
Matteson, 2014
Academic
Survey
Examines how two emotional constructs (emotional intelligence and
dispositional affect) and two cognitive constructs (motivation and coping
skills) interacted with students’ information literacy scores.
Mills, 2010
Academic
Review
Reviews a decade of empirical work of the new literacy studies, identifying
the shift toward research of digital literacy applications.
Mokhtar et al., 2009
Academic
Theoretical
Proposes model to develop IL standards for schools in Singapore based on
the Big Six Model
Morgan, 2014
Academic
Theoretical
Discusses reasons for an approach to teaching IL which emphasis higher-
order intellectual concerns.
Ng, 2012
Workplace
Survey
Investigates knowledge about educational technologies by undergraduate
students and how they adopt unfamiliar technologies into their learning.
24 Kay and Ahmadpour
O’Farrill, 2010
Workplace
Qualitative
Explores theoretically and empirically the concept of workplace information
literacy (IL) and its connections to knowledge management.
Pinto et al., 2010
Academic
Review
Provides review of information literacy and its evolution over the last 30
years.
Rebmann, 2013
General Life
Theoretical
Charts the development of three literacy research frameworks:
multiliteracies, new literacies, and popular literacies.
Saranto & Hovenga, 2004
Workplace
Review
Reviews literature focusing on the concept of information literacy in the field
of health, nursing and medical informatics.
Savolainen, 2009
Academic
Theoretical
Discusses the process of information use by comparing the constructivist
and human information processing approach.
Schroeder & Cahoy, 2010
Academic
Theoretical
Proposes a model for affective-focused higher education information
literacy standards.
Spiranec & Zorica, 2010
Academic
Theoretical
Introduces the term Information Literacy 2.0 as a subset of information
literacy providing an outline of theoretical assumptions.
Spring, 2010
Academic
Theoretical
Integrates Bloom’s taxonomy and the SCONUL seven pillars of information
literacy,
Sundin, 2008
Academic
Qualitative
Examines how different approaches to information literacy are used as tools
in negotiating the information-seeking expertise of university librarians.
Tuominen et al., 2005
Workplace
Theoretical
Views IL as a sociotechnical practice and how individuals interact with other
people and with technical artifacts.
Wen & Shih, 2006
Workplace
Survey
Establishes information literacy competence standards for elementary and
high school teachers.
Wilder, 2005
Academic
Theoretical
Examines the complexity of information retrieval by librarians.
