See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/231351174

Information literacy: a 21st-century graduate skill.

Article · February 2011

CITATIONS READS

3 1,422

2 authors, including:

Nazlin Bhimani
UCL's Institute of Education
14 PUBLICATIONS   25 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

MA Music, University of British Columbia View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Nazlin Bhimani on 05 June 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Volume 1, Number 1, February 2011
Middlesex Journal of Educational Technology
Middlesex University

This inaugural edition of MJET is dedicated to Alex Moon (1970 - 2010), the
founding editor of the journal.

Editors
Alex Moon, Middlesex University, UK
Agi Ryder, Middlesex University, UK, a.i.ryder@mdx.ac.uk
Maureen Spencer, Middlesex University, UK, m.spencer@mdx.ac.uk
David Westwood, Middlesex University, UK, d.westwood@mdx.ac.uk

Consultant Editor
Ifan Shepherd, Middlesex University, UK, I.Shepherd@mdx.ac.uk

Middlesex Journal of Educational Technology is an online journal published by

Middlesex University. All articles published in this journal are peer-reviewed. The
journal is interdisciplinary in approach and will include academic articles, research
initiatives notes, conference and book reviews, and software and technology
reviews. The articles and papers are directed towards the study and research of e-
learning in its diverse aspects: pedagogical, curricular, sociological, economic,
philosophical, and technical that contribute to the development of both theory and
practice in the field of e-learning.

Preliminary enquiries should be addressed to Agi Ryder: a.i.ryder@mdx.ac.uk,

Centre for Learning and Teaching Enhancement, Middlesex University, The
Burroughs, London, NW4 4BT.

Copyright Middlesex University 2011

Copyright of articles contained within this journal Is retained by the original author or
original publisher as cited.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-

NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.

Middlesex Journal of Educational Technology is available online (ISSN 2041-2762).

Middlesex Journal of Educational Technology is published annually.

MJET, Volume 1, Number 1, February 2011 2

Information Literacy: A 21st-century Graduate Skill

Nazlin Bhimani
Librarian, Christʼs College, University of Cambridge, nb428@cam.ac.uk (formerly
School Liaison Manager for Engineering & Information Sciences & the Institute for
Work Based Learning at Middlesex University)

Abstract
There is a heightened awareness in higher education of the crucial role of
information literacy in teaching and learning. The paper defines information literacy;
encourages collaborative partnerships between academic teaching staff, librarians
and learning support staff; and proposes an institution-wide systematic development
of information literacy in teaching and learning. The paper also makes reference,
from a librarianʼs perspective, to some of the key findings of a study undertaken by
researchers at Middlesex University on user behaviour in the electronic environment
specifically as it relates to information literacy in the academic context. The paper
proposes a way in which these skills can become integral to the teaching and
learning strategy of a higher education institution in the second decade of the 21st
century.
Keywords: information literacy, digital literacy, 21st-century literacies, user
behaviour, electronic resource discovery systems

Introduction
Coming into frequent contact with the digitally savvy young students who spend a
large proportion of their time in social networking activities on their smart phones, we
may be forgiven for being seduced into imagining that if we put them in front of
electronic information resources in our digital libraries, it will be plain sailing; these
young students will take to searching and accessing electronic resources appropriate
for academic study like ducks to water. The User Behaviour in Resource Discovery
(UBiRD) study (Wong et al., 2009) found the opposite to be the case and confirmed
that there is a huge gap between perception and reality, between studentsʼ apparent
ability to use digital technologies and their actual ability to conduct even a basic
search using electronic resources in a learning situation. Several other user
behaviour studies further support the hypothesis that the digital information seeker is
not as information literate in an academic context as has been assumed (see: JISC,
2010 for a list of user behaviour studies). The so-called ʻGoogle Generationʼ (used
to describe people born after 1994 and popularised by the jointly funded JISC and
British Library CIBER Report Information behaviour of the researcher of the future,
[JISC, 2008]) and their competence in searching and finding appropriate materials
for academic study is a hotly debated topic both within the library and information
science profession and among educationalists. However, it appears that this debate
is not that new. As early as 2004, in her article on the information seeking behaviour
of ʻGeneration Yʼ students (that is, people born between 1978 and1993), Angela
Weiler raised concerns about the critical thinking and cognitive skills of these
students because so much of their time was spent in front of electronic screens
ʻpassively absorbing words and images, rather than readingʼ (Weiler, 2005, p. 46).

MJET, Volume 1, Number 1, February 2011 44

The current generation, the Google Generation, uses more advanced interactive
digital technologies in ways that appear far from passive, most obviously in social
networking and in online gaming. However, when it comes to evaluating the value
and relevance of large amounts of information they may find on the internet, a
certain passive acceptance is more common than critical engagement.

ʻInformation literacyʼ remains a somewhat misunderstood term. The terms

ʻInformation Competenceʼ, ʻInformation Fluencyʼ and ʻInformation Masteryʼ have
been used interchangeably in the past to capture the essence of what is meant by
being information literate (Bowden, 2006). More recently, much has been written on
the various online discussion lists, specifically in relation to the digital literacies
framework (which includes digital literacy, information literacy, critical thinking,
reading and writing skills) which is being proposed in the Learning Literacies in the
Digital Age report (JISC, 2009). The Chartered Institute of Library & Information
Professionals (CILIP) defines information literacy as ʻknowing when and why you
need information, where to find it, and how to evaluate, use and communicate it in an
ethical mannerʼ (CILIP, 2009). This straightforward definition implies several skills (or
competencies) that are required to be information literate. These are listed below
and can be categorized into three key actions—Finding, Evaluating and Using:

The need for information

Access to resources FINDING

Skills in finding information

Appropriateness in relation to need EVALUATING

Skills in exploiting search results

Awareness of ethical issues in the use of

information USING
Communicating/presenting information

Skills in referencing and citation

Figure 1: Finding, Evaluating, Using

In the digital landscape in which we operate today, information literacy skills cannot
be developed without appropriate information technology skills. In order to FIND
relevant and quality information resources that are appropriate for academic study,
students must have the prerequisite IT skills to use electronic resources. Students
need to be able to use a computer effectively in order to search for content. 
Competence in this respect can be defined as the ability to use technology
effectively in order to operate the user interface of a searching facility such as an
online catalogue or an electronic index/database, and to have a basic understanding
of how this interface works to enable intelligent searching.

MJET, Volume 1, Number 1, February 2011 45

Achieving competence in the use of IT will help users to focus on search results and
EVALUATE the information retrieved in order to gauge usefulness or
appropriateness.  An evaluation of the information found can also answer the
question of how the search could be re-formulated or re-structured in order to yield
better search results.  This is where information literacy skills kick in—when sense is
made of the information found through analysis and synthesis. All of this requires
critical reading and thinking skills for the information to be USEd and presented in an
ethical manner listing sources consulted using the conventional referencing styles.
The Society of College, National and University Librariesʼ (SCONUL) ʻSeven Pillars
of Information Literacyʼ diagram illustrates the close relationship between IT and
Library (information research) skills and the progressive development of information
literacy suggesting that these competences need to be taught over a period of time
in order to develop the learner (SCONUL, 2009).

Figure 2: SCONUL: Seven Pillars of Information Literacy

MJET, Volume 1, Number 1, February 2011 46

In order for these skills to be harnessed effectively, the teaching must be placed
within the subject context. Teaching students information research skills outside of
the subject context, in isolation to what is taught in the curriculum, is a waste of time
and resources as students have themselves confirmed in interviews on their prior
experience of using libraries (Wong et. al., 2009). Furthermore, the timing of this
teaching needs to anticipate coursework deadlines or work that is undertaken in
preparation for an exam to make it even more relevant to the student. This paper
proposes a number of shifts in attitude and practice that are necessary in order to
embed these literacies into the curriculum so that they become integral to the
teaching and learning strategy in an higher education institution. However, I wish to
refer first in more detail to the findings of the recent User Behaviour in Resource
Discovery study, UBiRD.

The UBiRD Study

The UBiRD study looked at the information-seeking behaviour of thirty-four
undergraduate and postgraduate students studying Business and Economics at
three higher education institutions in the UK: Cranfield University, the London
School of Economics, and Middlesex University. Students were given three tasks,
beginning with a simple search and moving to tasks of increasing complexity, all of
which required them to find appropriate information resources for a given topic. The
study was based on qualitative data obtained from both an observational study
(recorded video evidence shows how users interact online and search on a variety of
freely available information resources and library subscribed electronic resources)
and in-depth interviews with the participants. The analysis of the data provided the
following: an understanding of why certain resource discovery systems were chosen
by the participants, how students searched and the search strategies they employed
to seek information, the issues that affected their searching and an appreciation of
the problems and difficulties students experienced with accessing both print and
electronic library resources.

The UBiRD study revealed that information literacy overlaps somewhat with
information technology literacy because so much of the information available today is
in electronic/digital format. There is a clear implication that students need to have
competence in both IT and information literacy skills. However, the ways in which
students formulate their queries is highly dependent upon the functionalities provided
by these information systems, whether they are databases or popular search
engines. Indeed, it is possible to argue that the mental frameworks required for the
use of information technology are fundamental and the famous dictum, ʻthe limits of
my language mean the limits of my worldʼ (Wittgenstein, 1974, p.115) is wholly
appropriate in this context.

Interview responses from students on the UBiRD project demonstrated that while
most higher education institutions provide basic information skills training and library
support to students in some form or another, for many these sessions predominately
take place during induction week when students are familiarising themselves with
their new institution. This is not always the best time for teaching library and
information skills as many of the students who were surveyed complained about an

MJET, Volume 1, Number 1, February 2011 47

information overload at the start of the academic year. Information given at this time
is not relevant and too general to be of immediate use and also outside the subject
context. This information is therefore quickly forgotten.

The study also revealed that many students did not receive any subject-specific
information skills training after the induction period because this training was not built
into the curriculum. Many undergraduate students confirmed that they were
unaware of library electronic resources for the entirety of their first year. This was
primarily because, in the majority of cases, their coursework did not require them to
go beyond the internet to find information sources. This in itself may not be bad news
if it is part of a deliberate strategy by academics working closely with librarians to
develop a gradualist approach to information literacy with a clear intent to introduce
more advanced skills and awareness of library subscribed electronic resources in the
second year. However, it rarely is. The development of advanced information literacy
skills is too often dependent on the natural wit of the student, the chance encounter
with an enlightened academic who has foregrounded skills development in a
particular module, or a very valuable one-to-one session with a librarian.

The UBiRD study offered extensive evidence that participants want quick, easy and
unproblematic access to resources and to the downloading of information resources.
One of the key problems is that often, in order to locate desired articles, the user has
to search across several different databases that have different search interfaces.
The simple search interfaces available on Google and YouTube, for instance, have
falsely led the user into believing that all searching is easy, so much so that the
ʻAdvanced Searchʼ facilities on Google and Google Scholar are almost always
ignored. Faced with the myriad of different searching platforms, not to mention the
multiple ways library subscribed resources can be accessed, that is via the library's
website, the publisher's website, the institution's VLE and/or via a popular search
engine (such as Google or Google Scholar), the student is immediately in unfamiliar
territory. This can be both frustrating and disappointing especially if the initial
searching has been unproductive. There is therefore a gulf between what the user
expects the system to be capable of, and what the electronic resource discovery
system is capable of supporting.

The study revealed that users often reverted to resources or practices they were
most familiar with, including obtaining information from their friends at other higher
education institutions and members of their family. Most participants chose Google
as their first port of call. Participantsʼ choice of resources was inevitably determined
by their domain knowledge, prior knowledge about available resources that would
provide information on the specified topic and the knowledge about the content,
structure and experience of using familiar search engines. In contrast, users
accessing library-provided ʻacademicʼ databases had to begin with some knowledge
of which database to search (from a long list of databases for every conceivable
subject), how to authenticate and how to access the database in order to then being
searching effectively using the appropriate terms.

MJET, Volume 1, Number 1, February 2011 48

The UBiRD research reported very little application or knowledge of Web 2.0 tools in
the resource discovery process by the participants. In fact, the assumption that has
been made, that present day users are discerning in their use of social networking
Web 2.0 technologies, is inaccurate as suggested in the opening section of this
paper. While a number of users may be familiar with information-sharing
technologies such as Facebook, Twitter, Delicious and so on, there is little evidence
in the UBiRD study to suggest that usersʼ knowledge of such technologies is being
applied to the search and retrieval tasks in electronic resource discovery. In fact, one
user was disconcerted when he came across Delicious bookmarks on the London
School of Economicʼs library pages for Business and Economics. What was
observed was that students use their personal social networks whether they are on
Facebook, MSN (chat) or email to seek advice from their friends or people they know
who have the information that is required. Minimal evidence of the use of Web 2.0
tools to help or integrate their resource discovery activities confirms that being
socially active in the digital arena does not necessarily mean students can apply
their knowledge of these technologies in an academic context. A real pedagogic
challenge presents itself in devising a way to enable students to transfer their social
IT skills in ways that significantly enhance their academic competence.

Meeting the Pedagogic Challenge

In light of the above, and considering the CILIP definition and SCONULʼs seven
pillars of information literacy, it is clear that a path needs to be forged to ensure that
there is a systematic and progressive embedding of the required skills into the
curriculum. This can only be achieved if support staff (in the library, in IT and in
language support that teach academic reading and writing) and academics work in
partnership. Furthermore, this collaboration needs to consider not just the content of
workshops/seminars but how the content is delivered, that is, whether it is face-to-
face, online using emerging technologies or a mixture of both. The timing, that is,
when it is most appropriate for the skills to be taught, and how they will be assessed
are also important considerations.
Academic staff can work with library staff so that resources relevant to the
assignment/project are introduced to students at the appropriate times. Co-ordination
between IT staff, librarians and language support staff is important so that students
have the necessary referrals for support depending on needs. Of equal importance is
the assessment of information literacy and the workshop content. It is necessary to
assess information literacy skills in order to ensure that students demonstrate the
use of quality resources, such as, for instance, the use of peer-reviewed journal
articles and recommended websites, and critical evaluation skills in their choice of
information resources used in their work. The assessment task can take the form of
a literature review and/or an annotated bibliography, which clearly demonstrates the
criteria used for selecting information resources for the assignment. All of this
requires a much more integrated cross-university approach, in which teaching and
learning teams work in a coordinated way to deliver clearly defined learning
outcomes. There are many examples of good practice in embedding information
literacy into the curriculum within UK universities (Gaunt et al., 2009 and Information
Literacy Research at Staffordshire University, 2008).

MJET, Volume 1, Number 1, February 2011 49

These developments at the institutional level would be much encouraged and
practically supported by the development of a national strategy with an authoritative
body defining information literacy standards and promoting pedagogic good practice,
including the use of diagnostic testing of information literacy skills in learners. The
JISC-sponsored Digital Literacies Pilot Project (which is still work in progress) and
the recommendations of the Learning Literacies in the Digital Age report attempt a
move in this direction and take further the digital literacies agenda to include e-
learning and critical thinking skills (LLiDA-JISC, 2009).
Overall, we are in a situation where electronic resources and the technologies by
which they may be accessed, together with changes in the broad social behaviour of
the ʻGoogle Generationʼ have advanced far beyond current practices in library user
education. We have also seen how fluency with operating information technology
can be misconstrued as being information literate. From a librarianʼs point of view,
the blurring of the boundaries between the two concepts may present significant
problems in the future. Students often give the impression that they are fully familiar
with information technologies and possess high-level searching skills when, in fact,
there is a significant skills gap in evaluating the quality or usefulness of information
found, refining their searches, and effectively integrating what they find into their
knowledge and value systems. Working with what students know already and
developing more advanced skills through relevant and interesting activities is sound
pedagogy. In relation to managing a shift from one set of (social) behaviours and
competences to another set (professional and academic), it is vital for librarians and
academic staff to have a clear road map. This, arguably, will be provided by a
definition of competence levels in searching, retrieving and using information.
The building of knowledge on sound information is crucial, not only in increasing the
exploitation of extremely valuable online resources within the university learning
environment, but more broadly in advancing democratic society. These skills are life
skills and will be used throughout an individualʼs lifetime, in work and outside of
work.

Proposal
Information literacy needs to be at the centre of teaching and learning strategies with
a clear sense of shared purpose between all those involved in developing the
graduate skills and competences of the university student. Close collaborative
partnerships between teaching staff and support staff will ensure joined up thinking
when designing a curriculum that develops the learner in a holistic manner. Thus, as
mentioned above, the key issues to consider in the planning are:
• Collaborative working relationships: between academic and support staff to ensure
joined-up thinking
• Subject relevancy: information literacy embedded into the curriculum so that it is
subject specific
• Assessed: skills are assessed as part of the course work to see how the student
uses information resources and demonstrates critical thinking, reading and writing
skills
• Timeliness: skills are introduced when they are most relevant in the curriculum, i.e.
before an assessed piece of work is due and

MJET, Volume 1, Number 1, February 2011 50

 • Progressive: students are allowed to gain experience and develop the skills over
time so that they become ingrained in their learning.
The above is proposed in order to ensure that all 21st-century literacies become an
integral part of the teaching and learning strategy in higher education.

References
Beetham, H., McGill, L., & Littlejohn, A. (19 August 2010). Thriving in the 21st
century: Learning Literacies for the Digital Age: Project Report. from http://
www.caledonianacademy.net/spaces/LLiDA/
Bowden, D. (2006). Information literacy: the new knowledge management? Editorial.
Journal of Documentation, 62(4).
CILIP. (19 August 2010). Policy and advocacy - Information literacy: the skills. from
http://www.cilip.org.uk/get-involved/advocacy/learning/information-literacy/
pages/skills.aspx
CILIP. (2009, 19 August 2010). Information literacy: the skills. from http://
www.cilip.org.uk/get-involved/advocacy/learning/information-literacy/pages/
skills.aspx
Gaunt, J., Morgan, N., Somers, R., Soper, R., & Swain, E. (2009, 19 August 2010).
Handbook for Information Literacy Teaching (HILT). from http://
www.cardiff.ac.uk/insrv/educationandtraining/infolit/hilt/
Information Literacy Research at Staffordshire University. (19 August 2010). from
http://www.staffs.ac.uk/infoliteracy/research/
JISC. (2009a, September 2010). Information behaviour of the Researcher of the
future. from http://www.jisc.ac.uk/publications/reports/2010/
digitalinformationseekers.aspx
JISC. (2009b, September 2010). Learning literacies in a digital age. from http://
www.jisc.ac.uk/publications/briefingpapers/2009/learningliteraciesbp.aspx
JISC. (2010, 19 August 2010). The digital information seeker: Findings from selected
OCLC, RIN and JISC user behaviour projects. from http://www.jisc.ac.uk/
publications/reports/2010/digitalinformationseekers.aspx
LLiDA- Learning Literacies for a Digital Age. (August 2010). from http://
www.caledonianacademy.net/spaces/LLiDA/
SCONUL. (2009, 19 August 2010). Information Skills in Higher Education: A
SCONUL Position Paper. from http://www.sconul.ac.uk/groups/
information_literacy/papers/Seven_pillars.html
Weiler, A. (2005). Information-Seeking Behavior in Generation Y Students:
Motivation, Critical Thinking, and Learning Theory. Journal of Academic
Librarianship, 31(1), 46-53.
Wittgenstein, L. (1974). Tractatus logico-philosophicus. London: Routledge and
Kegan Paul.
Wong, W., Stelmaszewska, H., Bhimani, N., Barn, S., & Barn, B. (2009, 19 August
2010). User Behaviour in Resource Discovery: Final Report. from http://
www.ubird.mdx.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/ubird-report-final.pdf

MJET, Volume 1, Number 1, February 2011 51

View publication stats