Running Head: TERMINOLOGY OF INFORMATION LITERACY INSTRUCTION

TERMINOLOGY OF INFORMATION LITERACY INSTRUCTION: WHAT TERMS

SHOULD PUBLIC LIBRARIES USE TO PROMOTE AND TEACH INFORMATION
LITERACY
Team 7: Alphild Dick, Melendra Sanders, Shelly Speicher, and Julie Temple
June 24, 2012
LI 810XA: Research in Library and Information Science
Emporia State University School of Library and Information Science

Abstract: This overview of information literacy (IL) and information literacy instruction
(ILI) focuses on the terminology used in advocating for and discussion of IL practices in
public libraries. Although the focus of the proposal is on public libraries, the practices
reviewed also look to academic and school libraries for understanding of how IL and ILI
are currently perceived and delivered. This study also considers the unique situation of
public libraries in regards to the terminology that has been appropriated by academic
institutions, as well as the role of public librarians themselves in providing ILI.

Keywords: Information science, Information literacy, Information literacy instruction,

advocacy in information literacy, IL competencies, Information Society
Terminology of Information Literacy Instruction:
The Terms Used by Public Libraries to Promote and Teach Information Literacy

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

TERMINOLOGY OF INFORMATION LITERACY INSTRUCTION

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

including content analysis of advocacy literature and IL promotions, we will determine

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

TERMINOLOGY OF INFORMATION LITERACY INSTRUCTION

5
Toby Leigh Matoush (2006) mentions the importance of partnerships between librarians
and faculty in his description of the IL programs provided for the students of San Jose
State University (SJSU), particularly for college freshmen. He writes that although some
librarians give only one-shot instructions of basic library use, others worked closely with
MUSE professors to develop tailored instructional sessions focused on finding material
for the class assignment (pg. 160). In order to make efficient use of the students class
time in the library, the librarians created online tutorials that the students completed
before class, which allowed them to focus on the MUSE professors course content in
more depth; the SJSU professors understand the benefits of having more than just a
one-shot IL session.
In his article, Rethinking Information Literacy, James W. Marcum (2002) highlights the
importance of a number of previous authors, including Breivik, Neely, and Bruce,
demonstrating how their presentation of information literacy expanded it from a library
concern to a much broader topic of interest to the world. In fact, they establish
information literacy as central to the very learning process (pg. 2). Marcum goes on to
illustrate the current IL model as a process in which information proceeds through key
stages, progressing from noise (unorganized data) to perceived data, to (organized)
information, to knowledge (pg. 3). However, Marcum questions this model and calls for
moving beyond the current information literacy paradigm to something he is naming
sociotechnical fluency (pg. 20). Although he does not give a specific definition of
sociotechnical fluency, he conveys the idea of mastering the skills necessary to
negotiate social, visual, technical, and informational knowledge within the broad context
of ones life, not only academic situations. This model lends itself to public libraries,
where academic success is not the focal point of service provided to the patrons.
Marcum discusses in great detail the compartmentalized ideas of IL and how the
checklist of skills often used to assess IL competency ends up being taught in an
oversimplified manner that gives the impression that information literacy is easy to
attain. Yet at the same time the actual definitions of information literacy call for so much
expertise as to be impossible to truly master without a higher degree in information or
library science. Tied up in Marcums call for a change in theory is the need for a
significant change in the understanding of how information becomes knowledge.
Marcum argues that knowledge is not the next step from gaining information, but
instead that knowledge comes from the complex interaction of learning, which takes
place in multiple ways and contexts. He stresses that gaining information is not the
same as knowing how to integrate information into a knowledge context.
In some ways, Marcums arguments align with those of Webber and Johnston (2000) in
their call for acknowledging that IL is more than a simple set of skills for use in learning
about other subject, but rather should be considered a subject of study in its own right.

Along with Webber and Johnston, Marcum calls for significant changes to the way IL is
taught, focusing on the need for social context, peer evaluation, and group work as
important to gaining competencies in information use and knowledge. However, he calls
for more drastic steps than simply reworking the way IL is taught, instead suggesting a
new understanding of what is necessary for participation in the modern and future
information world, stating, it is learning rather than information, and sociotechnical
fluency rather than literacy, that comprise the agenda for tomorrow (pg. 21).
Sheila Webber and Bill Johnston (2000) make the case that the way IL has been
discussed and defined has established teaching strategies that both devalue IL and
make it appear less complex than it actually is. In their article, Conceptions of
Information Literacy: New Perspectives and Implications, they argue that this
oversimplification and incorrect pedagogic approach perpetuates a perception of IL as
simply library use education that is best taught as a one-shot in a conjunction with a
course about a separate subject. Much of the blame for this oversimplification is laid
upon the tendency to define IL through a list of competencies individuals must master
in order to be information literate.
Webber and Johnston present an overview of how this list system of definition grew
out of many years experience that librarians have in user education (pg. 384). The
authors argue that this fragments the field of knowledge and reflects a surface
learning approach (with a short-term focus on the task in hand) rather than a deep
learning one (in which the students are encouraged to reflect on and contextualize what
they are learning (pg. 384). Rather than a list of skills that is learned by rote, the
authors envision IL education as a discipline of study in its own right, with its own
philosophical underpinnings and theories. To achieve this goal, they propose that
information literacy should be the domain of information scientists rather than librarians.
To support their endorsement of a change in pedagogical approach, Webber and
Johnston present evidence drawn from a course they created together which was
successfully taught on multiple occasions. In planning the course, they utilized an
action research approach to course design, a method of teaching that allows the
investigation of educational questions and professional experience by integrating
practice, and analysis of practice, as a unified development (pg. 388). Webber and
Johnston demonstrate how this approach allowed students to reflect upon their own
understanding of and competencies in information literacy, arguing that the ability of
students to perceive their own changing attitudes toward IL is an essential component to
learning to be more information literate. They trace some of the changes that took place
in student perceptions, from an early student focus on the technology aspects of IL to a
later understanding of the importance of evaluation, application and organization of
information as being subjects distinctive to information literacy (pg. 391).

TERMINOLOGY OF INFORMATION LITERACY INSTRUCTION

7
Although some of the suggestions Webber and Johnston present align with Marcum
(2002), such as reflective analysis of learning and social/peer interaction within the
classroom, they differ in their emphasis on the idea that IL should be treated as a
distinct educational discipline. Marcum calls for less isolation and more integration of ILI
into everyday learning environments, for example job training, while Webber and
Johnstons pedagogical approach is clearly academically situated.
Evaluation is also an important topic within the discussions of IL and ILI. In his article,
Information Literacy Assessment: Where Do We Start?, Andrew Walsh (2009)
addresses issues of how best to evaluate ILI in the context of academic libraries. The
article categorizes and evaluates nine assessment tools, ranking them based upon
criteria such as how difficult they are to administer and whether they truly gauge an
individuals skills. Walsh's discussion of papers and portfolios as methods of evaluating
student learning provides an interesting perspective; he points out that while these two
assessment techniques have shortcomings, they appear to be the ones best suited to
demonstrating actual learning outcomes.
Along these lines, Walsh also points out some difficulties of self-assessment, called for
by Marcum (2002), or self-reflection, called for by Webber and Johnston (2000), as
gauges of student learning, noting that self-assessment and even self-reflection are
highly subjective and students often assess themselves to have greater skill than they
actually obtain. While all of the options Walsh investigates have been used in
conjunction with an academic library or academic classes, the discussion of ILI
assessment resonates with the emphasis Grassian and Kaplowitz (2009) place on
assessment of ILI outcomes in all settings.
What skills are precisely contained within domains of IL presents another significant
challenge to researchers. One such researcher who concerns himself with this question
is Tibor Koltay. In his article Information Literacy for Amateurs and Professionals: The
Potential of Academic, Special and Public Libraries, Koltay (2011) contends that the
technologies presented in Web 2.0 and Library 2.0 are more accurately thought of as
toys than as useful tools for scholarship. Koltay contends that both the careful analysis
of critical sources and librarians themselves have become more important in academic
and special libraries, while public libraries are perfectly situated to offer digital literacy
skills such as Web 2.0 applications. Koltay argues that, in fact, the public library is the
ideal setting for such amateur learning because public libraries serve the uneducated
masses, and not professional scholars. So, while ordinary citizens are the consumers of
information, scholars are the creators of information. The divide that Koltay assumes
between the missions of academic and public libraries is illustrative of challenges public

libraries face in establishing credibility as providers of real and viable information

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

TERMINOLOGY OF INFORMATION LITERACY INSTRUCTION

9
In their in-depth history of information literacy (IL), Information Literacy: Essential Skills
for the Information Age, Kathleen L. Spitzer, Michael B. Eisenberg, and Carrie A. Lowe
(1998) trace the development of the idea of IL in more detail than any other resource
previously discussed in this review. The book clearly illustrates different pressures and
concerns that have played a part in building the current definition of IL. In order to
demonstrate the broad range of involvement in and concern about IL, Spitzer et al.
highlight some of the key groups who have taken a hand in defining it, from the
American Library Association to the American Association of Higher Education and the
National Education Association, as well as various accreditation associations.
Spitzer et al. also discuss some of the literacies that are commonly encompassed within
IL, such as visual literacy, media literacy, computer literacy, and network literacy,
providing clear definitions of each drawn from their own as well as other scholars
research. Although the authors call for an inclusion of more literacies, they do not
question the list approach to defining IL; like Marcum (2002) and Webber and
Johnston (2000), rather, in this book Spitzer et al. present the current definitions as a
culmination of decades of discussion about information literacy.
This overview of IL and the authors detailed look at the establishment of national and
state educational standards of IL, mapping out the academic and school library
approaches to IL, provide a useful history. However, two areas of discussion are of
more relevance to this research. Spitzer et al. present examples from some public
libraries that teach information literacy skills to groups, and in one-to-one sessions (pg.
205), from Deerfield Public Library in Illinois to the Science, Industry and Business
Library (SIBL), a branch of the New York Public Library in Manhattan. Another IL project
cited was developed through a partnership between the Lila Wallace Readers Digest
Fund and the America Library association which allowed Onondaga County Public
Library in NY to develop a literacy/learner curriculum that teaches basic literacy
students how to search for information using a computerhow to communicate via email, how to read their search results, and how to analyze information found in print and
electronic resources (pg. 206). These examples illustrate the types of IL programs
typically found in public libraries, programs that are focused on everyday technology
and information skills rather than academic skills.
Another relevant aspect of the book is its discussion of IL in the workplace and the ways
that technology is transforming professional expectations so that information literacy is a
key component of successful business practice. The authors highlight five trends drawn
from Banner that will require the general populace to have increased information skills:
The Virtual Organization, The Just In Time Workforce, The Ascendancy of Knowledge
Workers, The Growth of Worker Diversity, and The Birth of the Dynamic Work Force.

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

TERMINOLOGY OF INFORMATION LITERACY INSTRUCTION

11
information literacy, as a term, has been a source of conflict among scholars. She
writes, Twenty years ago, ALA wrote the by now canonical library definition of
information literacyWhile this definition provides a useful starting point for
understanding information literacy, a number of writers have pointed out its
shortcomings (pg. 163).
Although scholars have various and unique objections to this definition, Hall suggests
that the critical voicessuch as Alan Luke, Cushla Kapitzke, and Michelle Holschuh
Simmonsfind that the definition characterizes the learner or user as a passive
recipient of skills. Hall also cites the work of scholar, James Elmborg, who argues for
an alternative definition with richer critical possibilities (pg. 164). She suggests that, in
accordance with Elmborgs definition, IL is the set of knowledge and skills that allow
individuals to receive, decipher, and create information appropriate and valued within
their own community (pg. 164).
Similarly, Edward K. Owusu-Ansah, in his article, Debating Definitions of Information
Literacy: Enough Is Enough! (2005), presents a broad overview of the history of and
conflicts in the definitions of IL. Owusu-Ansah suggests that, these debates often
create impressions of potential conflicts when there are truly none. Though [librarians]
think they say different things, proponents of various interpretations do say mostly the
same things in different ways (pg. 367). Owusu-Ansah discusses the contributions of
scholars such as Eisenberg and Kuhlthau and organizations such as ACRL and ALA to
the definition of IL, but most interestingly, he maps the ways in which practicing
librarians have influenced the definition. He notes that, librarians, seeking greater
participation in the educational process saw a unique opportunity to contribute. They
could, concurrent with their existing custodial duties of collecting, organizing and
providing access to the multiple forms and sources of information, also help (pg.
370). Owusu-Ansah also points out that by creating a more cohesive operational
definition of IL, libraries and librarians will be better able to identify the ways in which
they can contribute to discussions regarding IL. This, in turn, will allow them to put more
time and energy into IL programs and practice.
However, scholars are not just questioning the definition of information literacy, but also
how the term is being used and understood by scholars and librarians. One of the most
direct addresses to the terminology of IL can be found in Peyina Lins article,
Information Literacy Barriers: Language Use and Social Structure (2010). She observes
that, examining the terminology of information literacy is not new (pg. 551). For
example, competence and fluency are often used as synonyms. The author indicates
that as it is currently understood, the term IL has negative implications that hinder some
to pursue active self learning and thus a full participation in civility (pg. 548). The term
literate is affiliated with the ability to read to most. If librarians offer a class in information

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

TERMINOLOGY OF INFORMATION LITERACY INSTRUCTION

13
support the goal of life-long learninga goal that cannot be achieved without
information literacy skills (pg. 29).
Another oft-cited work comes from Jane Harding. In Information Literacy and the Public
Library: Weve Talked the Talk But Are We Walking the Walk (2010), Harding thoroughly
discusses the issues encountered by public libraries in their efforts to develop
information literacy programs. Although this article is less concerned with the strict task
of defining information literacy, it is essential thanks to its assessment of the state of
scholarship examining ILI in public libraries; as she writes, there is scant work
concerning public libraries. Nonetheless, Harding makes a key observation when she
notes that, in doing groundwork for this particular article, her search results were
significantly expanded when she broadened her search terms to include user
education and lifelong learning (pg. 278).
The article The Need for Appropriate IL Instruction in a Public Library Setting by Loriene
Roy, Trina Bolfing, Bonnie Brzozowski (2010) highlights a technique often employed by
public libraries, that of providing information literacy instruction under the guise of
another skill. The authors cite an information literacy program offered at the Austin
Public Library where LIS delivered instructional sessions designed to bolster jobseekers technology skills and information literacy, focusing on topics such as the
construction of resumes and cover letters, interviewing etiquette and technique, and
social networking/identity management. Roy, Bolfing and Brzozowski note that the use
of terminology relevant to patron needs may have influenced the success of the
program.
Similarly, in her article, Taking Information Literacy Outside of the Library and Into the
Workplace, Annemaree Lloyd (2011) calls for information professionals to examine
current information literacy investigations and research. The article asks readers to think
about information literacy outside the realm of libraries and in the workplace instead.
Lloyd speculates that there is a valuable and untapped resource to be found in the
practical applications of information literacy. Rather than using the term information
literacy, the author suggests the adoption of the term information practice, which implies
constant information diffusion that continually benefits the members of a workplace
setting.

Information Literacy Advocacy

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

TERMINOLOGY OF INFORMATION LITERACY INSTRUCTION

15
ubiquitous, the reality is that societal integration of information literacy remains a
significant challenge in the U.S. (pg. 115). In 2009, NFIL transitioned from a volunteer
group to a corporation, which allows them to use market-based strategies to advance a
social mission and sustain its organizational viability. It can now pursue public and
private funding to further information literacy initiatives (pg. 117).
With NFILs incorporation and increased access to funding, they are able to promote the
message of IL and the importance of IL for improving quality of life. One notable act of
advocacy was gaining government support of their IL initiatives. The authors write, In
2009, President Obama proclaimed October National Information Literacy Awareness
Month, an initiative spearheaded by the National Forum on Information Literacy (NFIL),
with direct support from Senator John Kerry and the late Senator Edward Kennedy (pg.
118). Such support from noteworthy members of the U.S. government shows that IL can
be effectively promoted on a large, national scale.
Going one step further, to the international level, Horton (2011) describes the leading
international organizations advocating for IL and several important summits where these
organizations have met to discuss IL advocacy. The key international organizations
include the International Federation for Information and Documentation, the
International Federation for Library Associations and Organizations and the United
Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. The U.S. National
Commission on Libraries and Information Science and NFIL also participated in the
international meetings.
One of their conclusions was that whatever strategies [they] developed must include a
strong component aimed at increasing public awareness of just what information literacy
was intended to mean (pg. 268), which established them as IL advocates on an
international scale. In spite of the collaboration of these organizations, Each major
cultural geographic region, even going down to the subregion and the country levels,
seems to have its own unique interpretation of how to define and advance the IL idea in
the context of its own education and training policies and programs (pg. 271). While
this may not initially seem ideal, it shows that both IL programs and advocacy
campaigns are flexible enough to adapt to individual communities and cultures.
However, not everyone agrees on the fundamental importance of IL advocacy. David
Isaacson, in Lets Talk Libraries, Not Information Literacy (2003), writes, It is a mistake
to mount a campaign to demonstrate that the public lacks still another form of literacy.
People may become just as ashamed of being illiterate in information as they are of
being illiterate in other ways (pg. 42). Isaacsons main concern is in the term
information literacy as it has implications that patrons who participate in IL programs
may be information illiterate. Such implications could potentially damage not only IL

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

TERMINOLOGY OF INFORMATION LITERACY INSTRUCTION

17
of everyone involved and the heretofore lack of this terminology has made marketing IL
programs challenging.
Harding reinforces this concern, particularly regarding the role of librarians, claiming that
many librarians, especially public librarians, may be the least able spokespersons in
efforts of IL advocacy because of a lack of understanding and knowledge of information
literacy concepts by librarians (pg. 84). Librarians view information literacy very
narrowly as the teaching of information searching skills and use it as an umbrella term
for a large array of library activities such as user education and library orientation (pg.
84), which underscores the misunderstandings of IL. While it is important for IL
programs and advocacy to reflect the communities in which they operate, there should
be more consistency in the definitions and understanding of the concept of IL. Clearly
defined terminology could help.
Research Aim and Questions
The goal of this research is to determine how the term information literacy is perceived
by both patrons and public librarians and how these perceptions impact the success of
IL programs. By examining the terminology used in IL advocacy campaigns, the
dominant terminology can be identified. Once identified, a survey to evaluate the
reactions of both public library patrons and librarians will be created and distributed. The
findings of the content analysis and survey will answer these research questions:
What are the dominant terminologies used in conjunction with IL programs (i.e.
information literacy, information competency, lifelong learning, etc.)?
What connotations do each of these terms have, and are they positive or
negative?
How do public library patrons react to each of these terms?
How do public librarians react to each of these terms?
What terms best represent the concept of IL while maintaining the best reaction
from both librarians and patrons?
The findings of this research will hopefully identify appropriate terminology that can
successfully market IL programs in public libraries.

Assumptions of the Research

Based on the review of the literature above, it is assumed that the term information
literacy holds a negative connotation, implying that those who need ILI are information
illiterate. Similar connotations are attached to the term information competency, which
would imply that the people in the program are incompetent. The literature reviewed
above also indicates that the definition of IL is unclear to both patrons and librarians,
and that without a clearer definition, it will be difficult to advocate for IL.
Prior to conducting our content analysis, it is difficult to create a viable projection that
will serve to guide the creation of our survey. However, we venture that patrons will find
everyday language more appealing and accessible, and that the adoption of such
terminology will improve the success of IL programs and advocacy.

Significance of the Research

While the literature reviewed above addresses the need for a change in IL terminology,
there seems to be little empirical research that addresses how the term information
literacy affects both patrons and librarians, and consequently the success of IL
programs. As noted by Hall (2010), there is also a significant lack of research on IL
programs in public libraries compared to the wealth of research on these programs in
school and academic libraries. This study would address each of these gaps in IL
research. It will also propose alternative terms that would market IL programs more
successfully.

TERMINOLOGY OF INFORMATION LITERACY INSTRUCTION

19
References
Brey-Casiano, C.A. (2006). From literate to information literate communities through
advocacy, Public Library Quarterly, 25(1-2), 181-190.
Elmborg, J. (2006). Critical information literacy implications for instructional practice,
Journal of Academic Librarianship, 32(2), 192-9.
Grassian, E.S. & Kaplowitz, J.R. (2009). Information literacy instruction. Encyclopedia
of library and information sciences, 3rd ed. Los Angeles, CA: University of
California Press.
Hall, R. (2010). Public praxis: A vision for critical information literacy in public libraries,
Public library quarterly, 29(2), 162-175.
Harding, J. (2008). Information literacy and the public library: We've talked the talk, but
are we walking the walk?. Australian Library Journal, 57(3), 274-294.
Hart, G. (2006). Public librarians and information literacy education: Views from
Mpumalanga Province: research article. South African Journal of Libraries and
Information Science, 72(3), 172-184.
Hobbs, R. (2006). Reconceptualizing media literacy for the digital age, in Matin, A. &
Madigan, D. (Eds), Digital Libraries for Learning, (pp. 99-109). London: Facet.
Hunt, F., & Birks, J., (2004). Best practices in information literacy, Library and the
academy, 4(1), 27-39. doi: 10.1353/pla.2004.001
Isaacson, D. (2003). Lets talk libraries, not information literacy, Library Journal, 128(19),
42.
Koltay, T. (2011). Information literacy for amateurs and professionals: The potential of
academic, special libraries, Library Review, 60(3), 246-257.
Marcum, J.W. (2002). Rethinking information literacy. The library quarterly, 72(1). 1-26.
Matoush, T. L. (2006). New forms of information literacy. Reference Services Review,
34(1), 156-163.
Lin, P. (2010), Information literacy barriers: Language use and social structure, Library
High Tech, 28(4), 548-568.
Lloyd, A. (2011). Trapped between a rock and a hard place: What counts as information
literacy in the workplace and how is it conceptualized, Library Trends, 60(2), 277296.
Owusu-Ansah, E. K. (2005). Debating definitions of information literacy: Enough is
enough!. Library Review, 54(6), 366-374.
Roy, L., Bolfing, T., & Brzozowski, B., (2010). Computer classes for job seekers: LIS
students team with public librarians to extend public services, Public Library
Quarterly, 29, 193-209.
Spitzer, K.L., Eisenberg, M.B., & Lowe, C.A. (1998). Information literacy: Essential skills
for the information age. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.
Webber, S. & Johnston, B. (2000). Conceptions of information literacy: New
perspectives and implications. Journal of information science, 26(6), 381-397.

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