Pathways into information literacy and communities of practice

PATHWAYS INTO
INFORMATION
LITERACY AND
COMMUNITIES
OF PRACTICE


CHANDOS
INFORMATION PROFESSIONAL SERIES
Series Editor: Ruth Rikowski
(email: )
Chandos’ new series of books is aimed at the busy information
professional. They have been specially commissioned to provide the
reader with an authoritative view of current thinking. They are designed
to provide easy-to-read and (most importantly) practical coverage of
topics that are of interest to librarians and other information professionals.
If you would like a full listing of current and forthcoming titles, please
visit www.chandospublishing.com.
New authors: we are always pleased to receive ideas for new titles;
if you would like to write a book for Chandos, please contact Dr Glyn Jones
on or telephone 144 (0) 1865 843000.


PATHWAYS INTO
INFORMATION
LITERACY AND
COMMUNITIES
OF PRACTICE
Teaching Approaches
and Case Studies
Edited by

DORA SALES
MARÍA PINTO

AMSTERDAM • BOSTON • HEIDELBERG • LONDON
NEW YORK • OXFORD • PARIS • SAN DIEGO
SAN FRANCISCO • SINGAPORE • SYDNEY • TOKYO
Chandos Publishing is an imprint of Elsevier


Chandos Publishing is an imprint of Elsevier
50 Hampshire Street, 5th Floor, Cambridge, MA 02139, United States
The Boulevard, Langford Lane, Kidlington, OX5 1GB, United Kingdom
Copyright r 2017 Dora Sales and Maria Pinto. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means,
electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage and
retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Details on how to seek
permission, further information about the Publisher’s permissions policies and our arrangements
with organizations such as the Copyright Clearance Center and the Copyright Licensing Agency,
can be found at our website: www.elsevier.com/permissions.
This book and the individual contributions contained in it are protected under copyright
by the Publisher (other than as may be noted herein).

Notices
Knowledge and best practice in this field are constantly changing. As new research and experience
broaden our understanding, changes in research methods, professional practices, or medical treatment
may become necessary.
Practitioners and researchers must always rely on their own experience and knowledge in evaluating
and using any information, methods, compounds, or experiments described herein. In using such
information or methods they should be mindful of their own safety and the safety

of others, including parties for whom they have a professional responsibility.
To the fullest extent of the law, neither the Publisher nor the authors, contributors, or editors,
assume any liability for any injury and/or damage to persons or property as a matter of products
liability, negligence or otherwise, or from any use or operation of any methods, products, instructions,
or ideas contained in the material herein.
British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress
ISBN: 978-0-08-100673-3 (print)
ISBN: 978-0-08-100680-1 (online)
For information on all Chandos Publishing
visit our website at

Publisher: Glyn Jones
Acquisition Editor: Glyn Jones
Editorial Project Manager: Tessa De Roo
Production Project Manager: Omer Mukthar
Designer: Victoria Pearson Esser
Typeset by MPS Limited, Chennai, India


LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS
B. Akkoyunlu
Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey
A. Anderson
University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, United Kingdom
C. Basili
European Network on Information Literacy (EnIL), Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche,
Rome, Italy

J. Corte´s-Vera
Autonomous University of Ciudad Jua´rez, Chihuahua, Mexico
J.-L. Evangelista
Autonomous University of Chihuahua, Chihuahua, Mexico
F.-J. Garcı´a-Marco
University of Zaragoza, Zaragoza, Spain
N. Gendina
Kemerovo State University of Culture and Arts, Kemerovo, Russia
A. Grafstein
Hofstra University, Hempstead, NY, United States
B. Johnston
University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, United Kingdom
H. Joosten
The Hague University of Applied Sciences, The Hague, The Netherlands
˘
S. Kurbanoglu
Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey
M. Lupton
Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia
J.-D. Machin-Mastromatteo
CETYS University, Baja California, Mexico
J. Tarango
Autonomous University of Chihuahua, Chihuahua, Mexico
J. van Helvoort
The Hague University of Applied Sciences, The Hague, The Netherlands

ix


BIOGRAPHIES

Dora Sales
Dora Sales has her PhD in Translation Studies and is a senior lecturer in
Documentation at the Universitat Jaume I of Castello´, Spain. Her
research in the field deals with Documentation applied to Translation
Studies and Information Literacy. She is a practicing literary translator and
has experience in literary publishing and the management of cultural
activities. Her teaching is focused on the subject of Documentation
Applied to Translation, from the paradigm of Information Literacy, a field
in which she has published books, such as Documentacio´n aplicada a la
traduccio´n: presente y futuro de una disciplina (Trea, 2006) and a number of
papers in international peer-reviewed journals with JCR impact factor.
She has directed several research and development (R&D) projects on
Documentary Resources and Informational Literacy for Intercultural
Mediation and Interpreting in the Healthcare Setting.
Marı´a Pinto
Marı´a Pinto has her PhD in History and is a Professor of Information
Science at the University of Granada, Spain. She is an expert in the field
of Information Literacy, e-learning, and assessment in higher education.
She has published several books, chapters, and papers on these topics in
international journals with JCR impact factor. Furthermore, she is the
lead researcher of diverse projects on Information Literacy and digital
reading in the Social Sciences (design of IL-HUMASS survey, EVAL-CI
portal, Alfin-EEES portal, INFOLITRANS model, INFOLITRANS
test, REWIL 2.0.). She has participated in international congresses
specialized in Information Literacy and has trained lecturers and librarians
in the practice of INFOLIT.

xi

ABOUT THE CONTRIBUTORS
United States
Ann Grafstein
Ann Grafstein is a professor of Library Services at Hofstra University (Long
Island, New York). She holds a PhD in linguistics from McGill University
and an MLIS from The University of Western Ontario. She has published
both in linguistics and in library science. Most recently, she coauthored two
books with Alan Bailin: Readability: Text and Context (Palgrave Macmillan,
2015), and The Critical Assessment of Research (Chandos-Elsevier, 2010). Her
article “A Discipline-Based Approach to Information Literacy” (Journal of
Academic Librarianship, 2002) received the Association of College and
Research Libraries Instruction Section Publication award in 2004.
Australia
Mandy Lupton
Mandy Lupton, PhD, is a senior lecturer in the Faculty of Education,
Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia. She teaches in
the Master of Education (teacher-librarianship) program. She has written
and presented, both nationally and internationally, on inquiry learning
and information literacy in KÀ12 and higher education. She also has a
blog dedicated to the topic: />Her other research interests include the use of social media and Web 2.0
tools in teaching and learning, as well as the development of students’
professional digital identity.
Turkey
˘
Serap Kurbanoglu
Dr. Kurbanoglu received her PhD in Information Studies from Sheffield
University, in Sheffield, the United Kingdom. She is a professor in
the Department of Information Management of Hacettepe University
(Ankara, Turkey), publishing and lecturing on systems analysis and green
libraries, as well as information literacy and lifelong learning. She has

numerous publications, mainly on information literacy. She was the
national coordinator and organizer of the UNESCO “Training the
Trainers in Information Literacy” workshop held in Ankara in 2008.
She is the project manager and content developer of the web-based
xiii


xiv

About the Contributors

information literacy instruction package (HUBO) developed for
Hacettepe University. She is involved in numerous national and international projects and initiatives regarding information literacy, including the
Moscow Declaration on Media and Information Literacy, and UNESCO’s
expert meeting on MIL Indicators. She is the cofounder and coorganizer
of ECIL (European Conference on Information Literacy) and the chair of
the editorial board of ECIL Proceedings Books.
Buket Akkoyunlu
Dr. Akkoyunlu holds a BA in Sociology from Hacettepe University, an
MA in Curriculum and Instruction in Education from Hacettepe
University, and a PhD in Educational Technology from the University of
Leicester, in Leicester, the United Kingdom. She is currently working as
a professor at the Department of Computer Education and Instructional
Technologies at Hacettepe University (Ankara, Turkey), where she is
teaching and supervising in the areas of e-learning, instructional design,
development, and evaluation of instructional materials and adult
educationÀrelated courses at both the graduate and undergraduate levels.
Her main research areas include web-based learning, multimedia learning,
instructional design, development and evaluation of instructional materials, curricula, and instruction. She has conducted research and published
articles and books in the field of educational technology, web-based

learning, multimedia learning, information literacy, and curriculum
studies. She is also involved in EU projects. She was Dean of the Faculty
of Education at Hacettepe University between 2006 and 2012.
Mexico
Javier Tarango
Javier Tarango has a PhD in Education (Autonomous University of
Chihuahua, Mexico) and also a Master’s Degree in Information Science
(University of Guanajuato, Mexico) and Organisational Development
(University of Monterrey, Mexico). Since 1996, he has been working at
the Autonomous University of Chihuahua in the Master’s and Doctor’s
Degrees in Education and the Bachelor’s Degree in Information Science.
He is a member of the National System of Researchers in Mexico, and
a leader of the Academic Body of Information Studies. His research areas
are Information Literacy and evaluation of scientific production. His
academic production is as follows: 6 books published, more than 20 book
chapters, 38 peer-reviewed and indexed scientific articles, 24 proceedings


About the Contributors

xv

at length, and 72 papers; he has supervised 27 master’s and doctoral
theses, has over 100 courses delivered as an instructor, 15 specialized
consultancies, and 9 research projects. In addition, he is a peer reviewer
of six national and international scientific journals.
Jose´-Luis Evangelista
Jose´-Luis Evangelista is a PhD candidate in Education at the Autonomous
University of Chihuahua (Mexico). He has a Master’s degree in Higher
Education and a Bachelor of Philosophy, both at the Autonomous

University of Chihuahua. He has taught humanities classes at the high
school level since 1975. Since 1994, he has taught undergraduate and graduate courses at the Autonomous University of Chihuahua itself. He is a
member of the Faculty of History and Historiography of Education. As a
coauthor, he has published various publications. His latest work is the book
Critical Pedagogy and Information Literacy: Towards an Inclusive and Participatory
Higher Education (Mexico, 2015), coauthored with Javier Tarango.
Juan-Daniel Machin-Mastromatteo
Juan-Daniel Machin-Mastromatteo holds a PhD in Information and
Communication Science (Tallinn University, Estonia), and a Master in
Digital Library Learning (Oslo and Akershus University College of
Applied Sciences, Norway; Tallinn University; and Parma University,
Italy). He has a Bachelor’s degree in Library Science (Universidad Central
de Venezuela) with more than 9 years’ work experience in archives,
libraries, higher education, and professional development. He has excelled
in different roles, such as cataloguer, developing databases, library promotion materials, and multimedia resources, as a reference librarian, supervisor, instructor, collection development, consultant, and scientific journal
reviewer. He has coordinated information literacy programs, written
diverse scientific articles published in open access repositories, in peerreviewed journals, and in international conferences such as International
Society for Knowledge Organization (ISKO), Qualitative and
Quantitative Methods and Libraries (QQML), and European Conference
on Information Literacy (ECIL). He is the author of the book Exploring
Users’ Information Behavior in Social Networks. He is a permanent editorial
board member of the scientific journal Information Development (Sage), and
a peer reviewer for the Journal of Academic Librarianship (Elsevier) and
Scientometrics (Springer).


xvi

About the Contributors

Jesu´s Corte´s-Vera
Jesu´s Corte´s-Vera has a PhD in Library and Information Studies at the
National Autonomous University of Mexico, as well as a Master in
Information Sciences from the University of Guanajuato. In addition, he
is a member of the National System of Researchers in Mexico. Since
1995, he has worked at the Autonomous University of Ciudad Jua´rez
(UACJ), where he has been an associate university librarian and director
of information and accreditation. He is currently a full-time professor and
teaches subjects mostly aimed at the development of skills for research
and information management, both in face-to-face and in online classes
and for undergraduate and graduate students. He is a member of the
academic body 54 UACJ, devoted to studies on education and social
sciences. His areas of academic interest are related to Information
Literacy, academic literacy, the dissemination of scientific knowledge, and
other factors that determine the advance toward the knowledge society.
The Netherlands
Jos van Helvoort
Jos van Helvoort is a senior lecturer at The Hague University of Applied
Sciences, The Netherlands (Faculty of IT and Design, Department
Information and Media Studies). He was chairman of the Board of
Examiners of his faculty for 8 years. At present, he combines lecturing
with his research for the Research Group of Sustainable Talent
Development at his university. His PhD thesis (September 2016) deals
with the use of a scoring rubric for performance assessment of information literacy skills in higher education. His publications have appeared in
the Journal of Information Literacy, Journal of Academic Librarianship, and
Communications in Computer and Information Science. He is a member of the
standing committee and program committee of the European Conference
on Information Literacy.
Henrie¨tta Joosten
Henrie¨tta Joosten combines lecturing at the Faculty of IT and Design

and conducting research at the Research Group of Philosophy and
Professional Practice at The Hague University of Applied Sciences
(the Netherlands). In 2015 she obtained a doctorate in Philosophy. In her
thesis, entitled Nietzsche’s New Dawn. Educating Students to Strive for Better
in a Dynamic Professional World, she uses the experimental, liberating, but


About the Contributors

xvii

also dangerous ideas of Friedrich Nietzsche to rethink contemporary
higher professional education. Following Nietzsche, she explores five key
elements of striving for better: uncertainty, excellence, critical thinking,
truth-seeking friendships, and learning through ups and downs. She has
published articles, inter alia, in the Journal of Philosophy of Education,
Educational Philosophy and Theory, and a variety of Dutch journals. In 2016
a public version of her thesis was published by the Dutch publisher
Klement. Her recent research interests are ICTs and the public sphere.
Spain
Francisco-Javier Garcı´a-Marco
Francisco-Javier Garcı´a-Marco obtained his PhD in Philosophy and Arts
in 1994, and has been a Lecturer in Information and Library Science at
the University of Zaragoza from 1996 and professor since 2011. He has
been the head of the Department of Library and Information Science,
organized the library and information science (LIS) postgraduate program
of the University of Zaragoza and was director of the Education
Innovation program of his university. He has been the chair of Ibersid, an
international conference on information and documentation systems,
since 1996. In addition, he is editor of the journals Scire and Ibersid and a

committee member of several Spanish and Brazilian journals. He has
researched and published extensively on the theory of information,
knowledge organization, information literacy, and digital change and its
social, ethical, and legal impact ( />user5lXSuQzQAAAAJ&hl5en).
Russia
Natalia Gendina
Natalia Gendina is director of the R&D Institute of Information
Technology of Social Sphere, Kemerovo State University of Culture and
Arts (in Kemerovo, Russia). She has a PhD in pedagogical sciences and a
professor and Honorary Worker of Science of the Russian Federation.
She was also a member of the Standing Committee of Information
Literacy in the International Federation of Library Associations and
Institutions (IFLA in 2007À11; 2012À15). She is a member of the
Russian Committee at the UNESCO Information for All Programme.


xviii

About the Contributors

United Kingdom
Anthony Anderson
Anthony Anderson is a senior teaching fellow in psychology at the
University Strathclyde (United Kingdom), where he is also vice-dean
(Academic) of the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences. His
research has focused on language understanding within conversational
contexts, peer interaction and learning, and thinking skills such as critical
thinking. He has authored a number of papers published over the years
on peer interaction and learning. He is coauthor with Bill Johnston of
the forthcoming book, From Information Literacy to Social Epistemology:

Insights from Psychology (Chandos).
Bill Johnston
Bill Johnston is an honorary research fellow in the School of
Psychological Sciences and Health at the University of Strathclyde
(in Strathclyde, United Kingdom). Before retiring in 2010, he was senior
lecturer and assistant director at Strathclyde’s Centre for Academic
Practice and Learning Enhancement. His academic interests include
information literacy, strategic academic development, the First Year
Experience at university, and curriculum and course design. He has
taught, researched, and published in these areas and continues to be
academically active in them, as well as in the field of lifelong learning. At
an earlier stage in his career, Bill was a professional librarian and worked
in both the public and academic library settings.
Italy
Carla Basili
Carla Basili is head of the research line “Knowledge circulation and
Scientific Information Policies” within the Italian National Research
Council, coordinator of the European Network on Information Literacy
(EnIL), and head of the project “Information Policy in Science. Knowledge
Sharing and Transfer in Scholarly Disciplines.” She has published about 80
works. Selected volumes include Information Literacy in Europe. A First Insight
into the State of the Art of Information Literacy in the European Union (2003),
Information Literacy at the Crossroad of Education and Information Policies in
Europe (2008), The Observatory on Information Literacy Policies and Research in
Europe (2009), Sinergie invisibili. Ricerca e Informazione Scientifica nell’Economia
della Conoscenza (2010), and Information Policies in the Humanities (2014).


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Huge thanks to Glyn Jones, Tessa de Roo, George Knott, Omer Mukthar,

and Mani Prabakaran, for their invaluable help and support. Above all,
many thanks to the contributors to this volume for making it possible.

xix


INTRODUCTION: TEACHING INFORMATION
LITERACY, AN OPEN CHALLENGE
Information literacy has many faces and shapes that need to be considered
when determining the broad nature of the phenomenon and its place in the
learning agenda in both educational and workplace contexts. A “one-size-fits-all”
approach to information literacy and the setting of generic standards might not
be feasible. More broadly based approaches to teaching information skills may
need to be considered . . .
Lloyd (2005, p. 235)

As is broadly assumed, information literacy (IL) forms the basis for
lifelong learning. It is common to all disciplines, to all learning environments, and to all levels of education. It enables learners to master content
and extend their research, become more self-directed, and assume greater
control over their own learning. An information-literate individual is able
to determine the extent of the information needed; access the required
information effectively and efficiently; evaluate the information and its
sources critically; incorporate selected information into their knowledge
base; use information effectively to accomplish a specific purpose; understand the economic, legal, and social issues surrounding the use of information; and access and use information both ethically and legally. As can
easily be seen from the functional complexity of IL, there are many paradigms involved in the consolidation of a concept that is still in the development stage and which, consequently, is expected to undergo a certain
degree of evolution that must always be compatible with its innermost
essence. But teaching a phenomenon that is still evolving is at least as
complicated as its more than likely intuitively foreseeable evolution.
From the theoretical complexity of the concept of IL (Bawden,
2001, 2012; Bruce, Edwards, & Lupton, 2006; Hjørland, 2002; Oakleaf,

2008; Webber & Johnston, 2000), new holistic theoretical models arise
(Detlor, Julien, Willson, Serenko, & Lavalle, 2011) regarding three areas
of IL (Lindauer, 2004), three landscapes (Lloyd, 2006, 2007, 2012),
three directions (Nichols, 2009), an information-literate university
(Johnston & Webber, 2004; Webber & Johnson, 2006), and changes in
learners’ cognitive states (Walton & Hepworth, 2011). These examples,
among many others, highlight the enormous complexity of the phenomenon of IL.

xxi


xxii

Introduction

As could be expected, the topic of IL is addressed from an endless
array of perspectives: from competency and skills (Head & Eisenberg,
2009, 2010; Head, van Hoeck, Eschler, & Fullerton, 2013); from the
library (Hufford, 2010; Oakleaf, 2009); from instructors’ perceptions
(Mehra, Olson, & Ahmad, 2011); from the disciplines (Farrell & Badke,
2015; Grafstein, 2002; van Helvoort, 2010; Pinto & Sales, 2015); from
institutions (Association of College & Research Libraries, 2015; IFLA,
2013); from technological-digital-online perspectives (Jenkins, 2006;
Kules & McDaniel, 2010; Somerville, Smith, & Macklin, 2008); from
learning (Arum, Roksa, & Cho, 2012; Samson, 2010; Searing, 2007);
from measurement (Cameron, Wise, & Lottridge, 2007); from students
(Gross & Latham, 2007; Pinto, Ferna´ndez-Ramos, Sa´nchez, & Meneses,
2012); from attitudes and motivation (Small, Zakaria, & ElFiguigui, 2004; Weiler, 2004); from assessment (Sonley, Turner, Myer, &
Cotton, 2007); and from constructivism-phenomenography (Diehm &
Lupton, 2012; Diller & Phelps, 2008; Gulikers, Bastiaens, & Kirschner,

2004). This list is by no means exhaustive, but rather includes the works
that we have been using over the last few years, and which reflect the
vitality of this field.
In sum, IL gives learners the ability to confront contents critically, to
become more self-sufficient, and to take more control over their
own learning process. In order to handle the complexities of today’s
information environment, a broadly based and complex concept of literacy is needed. Definitions of IL have primarily been provided by experts
from the fields of education and library and information science. These
definitions often offer a simplified view of IL, which do not provide a
comprehensive understanding from the learner’s perspective, as Lupton’s
(2004) key study put forward. IL should include all skills-based forms of
literacy but should not limit itself to them or to any particular technology
or set of technologies. Understanding purpose and context must be the
central theme.
From the viewpoint of instruction, IL should be part of any
“programmatic solution that ensures that every undergraduate is provided
information literacy instruction before graduation” (Owusu-Ansah, 2004,
p. 3). In order to achieve this, “a gradual but ultimately complete integration of information literacy instruction into the general education
curriculum” should be desirable (Owusu-Ansah, 2004, p. 11), since, at
the heart of the matter, there is an underlying “desire to reach as broad a


Introduction

xxiii

student population as possible, at the early stages of college life” (OwusuAnsah, 2004, p. 12).
In consonance with the universality of the IL phenomenon and its
adaptation to the sociotechnological progress made in recent years, the
Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL), within the

Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education, posits six
concepts: authority is constructed and contextual; information creation as
a process; information has value; research as inquiry; scholarship as conversation; and searching as strategic exploration (Association of College &
Research Libraries, 2015). Likewise, six categories of students’ experiences of learning IL have been suggested by Diehm and Lupton (2012):
learning to find information, learning a process to use information, learning to use information to create a product, learning to use information to
build a personal knowledge base, learning to use information to advance
disciplinary knowledge, and learning to use information to grow as a person and to contribute.
Importantly, Elmborg (2006) highlights the relevance of critical thinking within the context of IL. He stresses the need to enable conceptual
thinking and offers proposals for action in this field. In this sense, he notes
a need to move beyond an instrumental conception, based on practical
skills and competencies, to complement this with a rigorous understanding of IL as a phenomenon central to culture and society and grounded
in the ways in which communities construct meaning and the activities
that they carry out.
Information skills cannot be developed independently of fields of
knowledge, since they are integral to the learning process. If rigorous
and productive progress is to be made by initiatives for IL, it is necessary to analyze and understand the interaction between information
and communications technologies, the professional learning context,
and the instruction (requisite for specific subject areas). The concept of
communities of practice helps us explain how the process of seeking, using,
and evaluating information is not a purely personal one but may be
understood within the context of a particular academic training, social
organization or professional activity, as applied and specialized skills.
In other words, the different forms of literacy cannot be separated
from the socioinstrumental practices that are specific to each domain
of knowledge. IL is a generic need for all those who are part of today’s
information society but, above all, it is framed by the activities of


xxiv

Introduction

specific groups and communities. As Tuominen, Savolainen, and Talja
(2005, pp. 341À342) state:
If we see the learners of information skills as belonging to information-literate
communities, we need to understand the practices of these communities before
we can effectively teach IL. In essence, the socio-technical practice approach
calls for empirical research efforts to analyze how specific communities use various conceptual, cultural, and technical tools to access printed and digital documents and to evaluate and create knowledge.

Thus, the concept of community of practice, coined by Lave and Wenger
(1991) to describe the context in which learning and knowledge production take place, has an immense potential as regards the consideration and
the didactic implementation of IL, from a sociocultural learning approach.
Indeed, there are inspiring papers that specifically defend this adjustment
of the concept of communities of practice within the field of IL, such as
the studies by Lloyd (2005) and Harris (2008). In tune with those
authors, the work we are presenting here aligns itself with the sociocultural learning theories, in that it assumes that all human activity, including
informational activities, are essentially social and are related with a particular context and situation. As Talja and Lloyd (2010, p. 12) state:
The sociocultural approach places emphasis on shared ways of interacting and
communicating, and sees literacy as something that develops in social contexts
and is specific to a particular community. The overarching aim in promoting
such an approach is that it may help in developing educational practices that
move learners to the centre of educational practice and enable them to take
responsibility more fully for learning and knowledge-building in the communities that they participate in.

Furthermore, it is important to take into account the following:
A social constructivist approach attends to information as a product of social
relations, constituted and effected by practices that occur among people within
particular contexts. Throughout their interaction, information is used to create
meaningful constructs about practice and profession. From this perspective,
information literacy is not viewed as an abstract process, but as something

that can be affected by the social, historical and political relations among people engaged in practice. This enables access to information and directs the process of becoming information literate. In this respect, information literacy
manifests as a dynamic interaction between people which enables them to
work collectively and to develop a collective view of practice and profession.
Lloyd (2005, pp. 231À232)

Furthermore, Harris (2008) highlights communities as the primary
location of IL learning and practice, taking into account that IL should be


Introduction

xxv

viewed and tackled from a sociocultural and situated perspective. In the
same sense, and as opposed to the focus on individuals as learners and
performers, Elmborg’s aforementioned critical IL recognizes how the production, distribution and uses of information are sociopolitical processes
that require and encourage community involvement. In his words:
People produce, read, and interpret texts in communities, not in isolation.
Communities reach consensus about interpretation, sometimes easily and
sometimes contentiously. Literacy cannot be described, therefore, in broad terms
as a set of universal skills and abstractable processes. Rather, literacy is in constant flux and embedded in cultural situations, each situation nuanced and different from others.
Elmborg (2006, p. 195)

Since every community of practice needs, generates, seeks, retrieves,
and uses resources and sources related to the discipline or area being
researched or studied, and the practical tasks being performed, the need
arises to undertake studies focused on real user communities, and to make
efforts to reflect upon the teaching approaches used in IL training. This
edited collection gathers contributions from an international perspective,
on a key topic for information studies in the 21st century. It offers a

broad scope and a diversity of insights on IL as a cultural practice and
social process which is situated and contextual, as well as on teachinglearning experiences, educational methodologies and case studies, written
by reputed experts in the field.
This volume uses the concept of community of practice in a broad
sense, highlighting a discipline-based and/or community of practice-based
approach to IL, and the need to go beyond standards and models in order
to reflect upon the applied field, as stated, e.g., in Chapter 1, Information
Literacy and Critical Thinking: Context and Practice, by Grafstein
included in this work. The challenge is to draw up formative proposals
that cater for specific needs for specific groups within specific contexts. All
in all, IL is always situational, without forgetting that the horizon is lifelong learning and, therefore, training is a continuous and necessarily open
process. In fact, following the work focused on the definition of IL standards during the 1980s and 1990s, essential organizations in the field, such
as the Association of College and Research Libraries (2015), have evolved
to the point where they have gone beyond the standards and have proposed a real Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education,
which is still lacking a more contextual approach, but which represents a
step forward along the pathway of IL, which offers so many possibilities.


xxvi

Introduction

The work that we are presenting here gives a clear idea of the global
scope of IL and its momentum, as it has gathered contributions by expert
researchers and teachers from the United Kingdom, United States,
Australia, Italy, Mexico, Russia, the Netherlands, Turkey, and Spain, all of
whom are recognized both in their own countries and internationally.
The first section of the book focuses on perspectives on IL teaching and
begins with Chapter 1, Information Literacy and Critical Thinking:
Context and Practice, by Ann Grafstein, who shows how IL always involves

thinking about information in a contextualized way, i.e., about its relationship with the context in which it is sought, interpreted and analyzed. Upon
this foundation, Grafstein centers her attention on critical thinking and the
need to develop it with a thorough knowledge of the characteristics and
needs of the discipline in which one is working, the community of practice,
and its characteristics. The author argues that critical thinking (i.e., the
ability to effectively evaluate research) is crucially dependent upon an
understanding of the research practices of particular disciplines and an
awareness of the environment—the social, political, economic, and ideological context—that affects the creation and dissemination of research.
Grafstein demonstrates how recognition of the context in which
research occurs is crucial to the ability to evaluate it critically. Her chapter
shows how effective critical thinking can only be developed when
research is situated within the context of the discourses, cognitive structures, and research practices specific to particular disciplines. Furthermore,
she also explains how research practices of particular disciplines and communities of practice exist relative to the economic, ideological, and political context within which research is funded, produced, and disseminated.
Then, Chapter 2, Inquiry Learning: A Pedagogical and Curriculum
Framework For Information Literacy, by Mandy Lupton, examines the
teaching approach of inquiry learning as a pedagogical and curriculum
framework for IL, useful both in KÀ12 and higher education. Lupton
presents the didactic possibilities of this approach, which aims to get as
much as possible out of the involvement of the students themselves, so
that their learning, understood as a process, revolves around inquiry and
reflection. Thus, Lupton makes a suggestive contribution that can help IL
teachers in the challenge of designing didactic tasks that motivate and
address their students, based on the needs of each discipline and each
community of practice. It is a challenge the new era forces us to take up,
if we truly assume the responsibility of wanting to train students for the
information society that surrounds us. And it is really a path that leads


Introduction

xxvii

IL to truly cross-curricular territory, beyond specific subjects, taught by
librarians or teachers of information science. Situating IL as part of
inquiry learning not only helps to make its relevance more clearly visible
but also to consider how it can be wholly integrated within the curriculum of both KÀ12 and higher education.
In Chapter 3, Information Literacy and Flipped Learning, Serap
Kurbano˘glu and Buket Akkoyunlu take an in-depth look at the possibilities of the flipped learning approach for IL instruction from a critical perspective that takes into account the benefits and advantages, as well as the
challenges deriving from it. Their approach is based not only on a review
of the literature on the didactics of flipped learning, but also on the analysis of a case study of student learning and student perceptions pertaining
to an experiment on flipped IL instruction.
As the authors state, the flipped classroom refers to a teaching method
(a pedagogical model) that delivers the lecture content (interactive videos
or tutorials) to students prior to the class for them to study in their own
time while class time is devoted to practical application activities where
students review and apply what they have previously learned. The implementation of this model has been favored by the potentialities offered by
Web 2.0 for searching, creating, publishing, and systematizing resources
via the Internet. At the same time, this opens up a series of novel possibilities for the teaching-learning process and allows the traditional roles of
teachers and students to alternate with each other. It is an attractive teaching approach with a huge potential for today’s students, most of whom
are digital natives, millennials.
In Chapter 4, Inclusion of Information Literacy in the Curriculum
Through Learning Communities and Action Research, Javier Tarango,
Jose´ Luis Evangelista, Juan-Daniel Machin-Mastromatteo, and Jesu´s
Corte´s-Vera, an acknowledged group of experts in IL in Mexico, describe
the practical and transversal process of integrating IL into university curricula, specifically with undergraduate students from the philosophy program of the Autonomous University of Chihuahua (Mexico). They do so
by developing alternatives to help traditional classroom teaching practices
evolve towards integrating learning communities and using action
research (AR) as a means of influencing a continuous improvement upon
learning processes, while offering some critical thought based on this case
study, from this practical experience. The authors defend the role of the

classroom as a formal learning space, where a direct applied influence can
be exercised on students. Moreover, it must be kept in mind that more


xxviii Introduction

often than not IL has been included in curricula thanks to individual
initiatives enacted by teachers or information professionals, rather than
because institutions have become aware of the importance of implementing this instruction in higher education in a general sense. In any case,
and above all, the authors defend not only the inclusion of IL in curricula, but also the need to reflect and apply it to the needs, interests, and
motivations of the particular students. As a result, the classroom may be
transformed into a real learning community (LC) of critical participants
through AR, where students are the real protagonists of the action and
interaction dynamics that may take place in the classroom, in the institution, and especially outside (lifelong learning).
Chapter 5, The Scoring Rubric for Information Literacy as a Tool for
Learning, the contribution by Jos van Heelvoort and Henrie¨tta Joosten,
describes the use of a scoring rubric to encourage students to improve
their IL skills. The Scoring Rubric for IL is a proposal developed by van
Heelvoort, and it is a pioneering tool within the field of IL assessment.
In this chapter, the authors analyze its potential as a way to stimulate IL
learning, from an active learning approach, by means of a case study conducted at The Hague University of Applied Sciences. The authors explain
how the students apply the rubric to supply feedback on their peers’ performance in information problem solving (IPS) tasks, and how supplying
feedback appears to be a promising learning approach in acquiring IL
knowledge, not only for the assessed but also for the assessor.
The second part of this book includes Chapters 6, The Relevance of
Communicative Competence in the Context of Information Literacy
Programs, and 7, Information Culture and Information Literacy as a
Scientific Direction and a Field of Educational Activities in Russia by
Francisco-Javier Garcı´a Marco and Natalia Gendina, on IL programs.
Garcı´a-Marco offers a suggestive contribution on the relevance of communicative competence in the context of IL programs, not only as the final

stage of any research project, specially in scholarly and academic environments, but also taking into account its essential presence for any human
activity, any context and discipline. He also tackles communicative competence from the point of view of library and information science (LIS),
taking a cognitive perspective. As the author states, because of its transdisciplinary nature, communicative competence training is usually scattered
throughout many different subjects and activities via academic and nonacademic programs, and it is not generally treated in an integrated manner.
This reflective contribution shows diverse views of communicative


Introduction

xxix

competence, with a special mention to the production, dissemination, and
impact of academic documents and scientific publications from an LIS perspective and enhancing the social networking technologies and the semantic
web. Also, it reflects on how to implement communicative competence in
IL programs.
For her part, Gendina provides a detailed look at the importance
of IL in Russia, where the most widely extended term is in fact
information culture. She, a pioneer in this field in her country, conducts
a thorough review of the history of instruction in information
culture in Russia since the 1970s. She then goes on to detail its multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary, and transdisciplinary scope, together with its
constituent elements and its typology, while describing in depth its didactic implementation and its configuration as an academic discipline. Her
contribution could be seen as a complete review of the case of a country,
Russia, and its way of dealing with the need to consolidate training in IL.
Finally, the third part of the book includes contributions on practicing
IL, both in academic and scholarly contexts. In Chapter 8, Toward a
Community of Epistemological Practice: A Case Study of Adult Returners
to Higher Education, Anthony Anderson and Bill Johnston offer an
appealing case study that takes adult returners to higher education as the
community of practice, a topic on which they have conducted groundbreaking research. The authors use a qualitative method that enables them
to analyze the experiences, patterns of study, and the IL of adult returners

in order to illustrate some of their epistemological perspectives. Indeed,
the concept of community of epistemological practice is posited by the authors
as being of particular relevance in their case study, as it focuses on the
experience and potential to bring the epistemic awareness of adult returners to maturity. The authors end by opting for a pedagogy based on social
constructivism, the theory of learning in which learners construct their
understandings via social and critical engagement with knowledge to build
personal structures of knowledge. After all is said and done, learning is
more than the assimilation of new knowledge by learners: it is the process
by which learners are integrated into a knowledge community. Anderson
and Johnston end by putting forward a series of recommendations that
could be taken into account in designing any program of instruction
related to communities of practice, as they defend the idea that such a
course design could include the conscious development of a community of
practice aimed at encouraging students to engage in relevant epistemological and information-literate academic practices.


xxx

Introduction

Carla Basili’s contribution, Chapter 9, Information Literacy
Requirements for Open Science, explores scholarly information literacy, an area
undergoing permanent development, and is a proposal of great interest to the
academic community in any area of specialization. The key concept is open
science, which is currently becoming increasingly more significant, both
in the communication of advances made in research and in its global impact,
in today’s digital environment. The author offers a detailed description of the
development and impact of the academic social media as new forms of scholarly communication. The concept of open science proposed by Basili is of
particular interest, and she posits that her openness is related with three specific
areas of the scientific system: knowledge dissemination (open access), knowledge creation (transparency), and knowledge transfer (science outreach).

Overall, this volume provides a snapshot of some open pathways into
IL teaching and learning, a fruitful area in which to keep pushing ahead.
It brings together contributions that focus on the importance of informational competences, shaped by informational skills and knowledge that—
situated in a particular manner—all communities of practice need as
the basis for lifelong learning. The book aims to be of a proactive, open
nature and the contributions deal with a range of lines of work related
to the IL framework, such as considerations about different teaching
approaches and their practical implementation, the IL needs of the scientific community itself within the current context of research, teaching
innovation projects and case studies within specific areas of application.
We trust that this collective work may also serve as a meeting point
allowing the different proposals for thought and didactic practice on IL to
become somewhat more familiarized with each other, and perhaps give
rise to fruitful exchanges and novel synergies.
Banking on this being the case, we believe that any considerations and
any proposals on such a vivacious and evolving training need, as is the
case of IL, have to be accepted as an ongoing task of reflexive and interdisciplinary revision and updating, and one that is always ready to evolve
taking into account the context and the needs that are required. In other
words, the process of reflection never ends and involves a path and a
challenge that are constantly under way. In this sense, this volume is
but another step forward, but one that we trust will spark new proposals,
considerations, and even doubts, so that the journey forward continues to
deliver the benefits of IL for all.
D. Sales and M. Pinto


Introduction

xxxi

REFERENCES

Arum, R., Roksa, J., & Cho, E. (2012). Improving undergraduate learning: Findings and policy
recommendations from the SSRC-CLA longitudinal project. Brooklyn, NY: Social Science
Research Council.
Association of College & Research Libraries. (2015). Framework for information literacy for
higher education. Accessed: 22.04.16.
Bawden, D. (2001). Progress in documentation-information and digital literacies:
A review of concepts. Journal of Documentation, 57(2), 218À259.
Bawden, D. (2012). On the gaining of understanding: syntheses, themes and information
analysis. Library & Information Research, 36(112), 147À162.
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), 1À18.
Cameron, L., Wise, S. L., & Lottridge, S. M. (2007). The development and validation of
the information literacy test. College & Research Libraries, 68(3), 229À236.
Detlor, B., Julien, H., Willson, R., Serenko, A., & Lavalle, M. (2011). Learning outcomes
of information literacy instruction. Journal of the American Society for Information Science
and Technology, 62(3), 572À585.
Diehm, R. A., & Lupton, M. (2012). Approaches to learning information literacy:
A phenomenographic study. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 38(4), 217À225.
Diller, K. R., & Phelps, S. F. (2008). Learning outcomes, portfolios, and rubrics, Oh My!
Authentic assessment of an information literacy program. Portal: Libraries and the
Academy, 8(1), 75À89.
Elmborg, J. (2006). Critical information literacy: Implications for instructional practice.
The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 32(2), 192À199.
Farrell, R., & Badke, W. (2015). Situating information literacy in the disciplines. Reference
Services Review, 43(2), 319À340.
Grafstein, A. (2002). Discipline-based approach to information literacy. Journal of Academic
Librarianship, 28(4), 197À204.
Gross, M., & Latham, D. (2007). Attaining information literacy: An investigation of the
relationship between skill level, self-estimates of skill, and library anxiety. Library &

Information Science Research, 29, 332À353.
Gulikers, J. T. M., Bastiaens, T. J., & Kirschner, P. A. (2004). A five-dimensional framework for authentic assessment. Educational Technology Research and Development, 52(3),
67À86.
Harris, B. (2008). Communities as necessity in information literacy development:
Challenging the standards. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 34(3), 248À255.
Head, A. J., & Eisenberg, M. B. (2009). How college students seek information in the digital age.
Project information literacy progress report: Lessons learned. Washington, DC: University of
Washington.
Head, A. J., & Eisenberg, M. B. (2010). Project information literacy progress report: How college
students evaluate and use information in the digital age. Washington, DC: The Information
School. University of Washington. Available from: />PIL_Fall2010_Survey_FullReport1.pdf. Accessed: 07.04.16.
Head, A. J., van Hoeck, M., Eschler, J., & Fullerton, S. (2013). What information competencies matter in today’s workplace? Library and Information Research, 37(114),
74À104.
van Helvoort, J. (2010). A scoring rubric for performance assessment of information
literacy in Dutch higher education. Journal of Information Literacy, 4(1), 22À39.
Hjørland, B. (2002). Domain analysis in information science: eleven approachestraditional as well as innovative. Journal of Documentation, 58(4), 422À462.


xxxii Introduction
Hufford, J. R. (2010). What are they learning? Pre- and post-assessment surveys for libr
1100, introduction to library research. College & Research Libraries, 71(2), 139À159.
IFLA (2013) Riding the waves or caught in the tide? Navigating the evolving information environment. Accessed: 19.02.16.
Jenkins, H. (2006). Confronting the challenges of participatory culture: media education for the
21 century. Chicago, IL: MacArthur.
Johnston, B., & Webber, S. (2004). The role of LIS faculty in the information literate
university: Taking over the academy? New Library World, 105(1/2), 12À20.
Kules, B., & McDaniel, J. (2010). LIS program expectations of incoming students’
technology knowledge and skills. Journal of Education for Library and Information Science,
51(4), 222À232.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation.

Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Lindauer, B. G. (2004). The three arenas of information literacy assessment. Reference &
User Services Quarterly, 44(2), 122À129.
Lloyd, A. (2005). No man (or woman) is an island: Information literacy, affordances and
communities of practice. Australian Library Journal, 54(3), 230À237.
Lloyd, A. (2006). Information literacy landscapes: An emerging picture. Journal of
Documentation, 62(5), 570À583.
Lloyd, A. (2007). Recasting information literacy as sociocultural practice: Implications for
library and information science researchers. Information Research, 12(4), 1À13.
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),
772À783.
Lupton, M. (2004). The learning connection: Information literacy and the student experience.
Blackwood, South Australia: Auslib Press.
Mehra, B., Olson, H. A., & Ahmad, S. (2011). Integrating diversity across the LIS curriculum: An exploratory study of instructors’ perceptions and practices online. IFLA
Journal, 37(1), 39À51.
Nichols, J. T. (2009). The 3 directions: Situated information literacy. College & Research
Libraries, 70(6), 515À530.
Oakleaf, M. (2008). Dangers and opportunities: A conceptual map of information literacy
assessment approaches. Portal: Libraries and the Academy, 8(3), 233À253.
Oakleaf, M. (2009). The information literacy instruction assessment cycle: A guide for
increasing student learning and improving librarian instructional skills. Journal of
Documentation, 65(4), 539À560.
Owusu-Ansah, E. K. (2004). Information literacy and higher education: Placing the academic library in the center of a comprehensive solution. The Journal of Academic
Librarianship, 30(1), 3À16.
Pinto, M., Ferna´ndez-Ramos, A., Sa´nchez, G., & Meneses, G. (2012). Information
competence of doctoral students in information science in Spain and Latin America:
A self-assessment. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 39(2), 144À154.
Pinto, M., & Sales, D. (2015). Uncovering information literacy’s disciplinary differences
through students’ attitudes: An empirical study. Journal of Librarianship and Information

Science, 47(3), 204À215.
Samson, S. (2010). Information literacy learning outcomes and student success.
The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 36(3), 202À210.
Searing, S. E. (2007). Integrating assessment into recurring information literacy instruction: A case study from LIS education. Public Services Quarterly, 3(1À2), 191À220.
Small, R. V., Zakaria, N., & El-Figuigui, H. (2004). Motivational aspects of information
literacy skills instruction in community college libraries. College & Research Libraries,
65(2), 96À121.