Information Literacy
Running head: ASSESSING INFORMATION LITERACY SKILLS
Assessing Information Literacy Skills of Students
in the Basic Communication Course
Stephen K. Hunt, K. Megan Hopper, Kevin R. Meyer, Kashmira V. Thakkar,
Vicky Tsoumbakopoulos, and Kaylee J. Van Hoose
Illinois State University
Paper submitted competitively to the Basic Course Interest Group, 2006 Central States
Communication Association Convention, Indianapolis, IN
1
Information Literacy
2
Abstract
Information literacy is becoming a key component of general education programs nationwide. As
a critical part of most general education programs, the basic communication course is on the
frontlines of the charge to teach information literacy skills to first-year students. Thus, the
pedagogy of the basic course should be altered to assist in student development of information
literacy skills. Moreover, the information literacy skills of basic course students should be
assessed to track the effectiveness of instruction and pedagogical practices. The present study
used a pre-test/post-test design with experiment and control groups to assess the effectiveness of
information literacy instruction in the basic course. Results of the present study are of interest to
basic course directors and instructors, general education curriculum specialists, and librarians.
Information Literacy
3
Assessing Information Literacy Skills of Students
in the Basic Communication Course
Library instruction is rapidly becoming a key component of general education programs
for first-year students (Jacobson & Mark, 2000). In large part, this component of general
education is based on the premise that information literacy is important, and that instruction in
this area should begin in the first semester of a students’ college experience (Jacobson & Mark,
2000; Samson & Granath, 2001). Thus, information literacy instruction must be integrated into
first-year classes. However, information literacy skills must also be assessed in order to gauge
the effectiveness of library instruction.
Increasingly, the basic communication course is assuming a larger role in the general
education requirements of universities (Cutspec, McPherson, & Spiro, 1999; Morreale, Hanna,
Berko, & Gibson, 1999). As a result, the basic course is at the forefront of the push to teach
information literacy skills to first-year students. Being an integral part of general education, the
basic course is typically responsible for, and often charged with the mission of, advancing
students’ information literacy skills. As the role of the basic course in general education expands,
the pressure to demonstrate student mastery of information literacy through assessment measures
will likely increase. Assessment can indicate if the basic course is effectively teaching
information literacy skills, and identify areas where the pedagogy of the basic course may need
to be modified (Hunt, Novak, Semlak, & Meyer, 2005). Pedagogical content knowledge in the
basic course should be expanded to include an evaluation of the instructional practices employed
in the basic course with regard to library instruction and information literacy. “Pedagogical
content knowledge refers to the ways of representing and formulating the subject that make it
Information Literacy
4
comprehensible to others” (Friedrich, 2002, p. 374). Thus, basic course directors should develop
pedagogy with regard to the instruction and assessment of information literacy.
Literature Review
Definition of Information Literacy
Information literacy refers to the students’ ability to find, analyze, and synthesize
information. Several specific skills are involved in the development of information literacy. For
example, in their Final Report, the American Library Association Presidential Committee on
Information Literacy (1989) observed 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” (p. 1). In addition, information literacy entails finding and locating
sources, analyzing and synthesizing the material, evaluating the credibility of the source, using
and citing ethically and legally, focusing topics and formulating research questions in an
accurate, effective, and efficient manner (Eisenberg, Lowe, & Spitzer, 2004). Furthermore, Stern
(2003) argues that students, as lifelong learners, should be able to “effectively find, analyze, and
apply relevant and reliable data from a variety of regulated and unregulated sources such as are
found on the Internet” (p. 114). Thus, it is educators’ responsibility to direct students to higher
levels of information literacy which reach the students’ individual needs, skills, and resources.
However, before educators can do so, it is imperative to have a stable, clear, and concise
definition of not only what constitutes information literacy, but also demonstrates how
information literacy instruction fits into the overall curriculum (Stern, 2003). As a result,
information literacy is a critical goal of general education (Jacobson & Mark, 2000).
Information Literacy
5
General Education and the Basic Communication Course
The basic course is a vital component of general education (Cutspec et al., 1999;
Morreale et al., 1999), and serves as the cornerstone of the communication discipline (Dance,
2002). Importantly, the basic course provides an ideal environment to teach and assess
information literacy, since students apply what they learn about library information through the
construction of speeches and presentations. In essence, the opportunity to practice information
literacy skills in an applied manner forces students to combine their content knowledge of
communication with their library instruction. To enhance information literacy, Jacobson and
Mark (2000) suggest that communication instructors and librarians must work in concert. There
is no substitute for students being able to learn by doing, and the basic course affords students
the opportunity to apply their skills to specific assignments.
Currently, the basic course focuses mainly on developing a student’s ability to effectively
and logically demonstrate ideas through writing, public speaking skills, as well as evaluate
information and its sources, and platform abilities. Additionally, Dance states the recent
argument that written and oral communication skills can be taught by faculty in other disciplines
is not to be heeded. Rather, the instruction of speech and thought in both spoken and written
communication needs to remain under the implementation of those who have had special content
training. In order to teach students the skills they need to become information literate, Shulman
(1987) recommends that communication education scholars address the content of teacher
competency tests. Shulman (1987) recommends a shift from the focus on assessment of the
capacity to teach, to an assessment of the content of instruction. In applying this “missing
paradigm” to communication education, Friedrich (2002) argues that despite a broad knowledge
base of effective instructional strategies, there is a lack of content knowledge specifically for
Information Literacy
6
communication teachers. Teaching students to acquire, use, and evaluate information is a staple
of communication education. However, as a discipline, communication has not sufficiently
discussed the pedagogy of information literacy.
Importance of Information Literacy
Information literacy establishes the foundation for lifelong learning through the process
of students assuming control for their own learning (American Association of College and
Research Libraries, 2000; Lakos & Phipps, 2004; Milner Library, 2004; Phillips & Kearley,
2003). Consequently, information literacy is important to all disciplines, all subject areas and at
all levels of education (Milner Library, 2004). Specifically, effective instruction in information
literacy prepares students for college and career success, and to be contributing members of
society (Jacobson & Mark, 2000). Information literacy is “central to the practice of democracy”
(DeMars, Cameron, & Erwin, 2003, p. 253). “Critical literacy pushes students toward selfreflection, interpretation, understanding, and ultimately action” (Swanson, 2004, p. 264).
Importantly, information literacy is also intertwined with, and linked to, the development of
critical thinking skills (Eisenberg et al., 2004). Thus, information literacy has significant
ramifications in terms of a student’s intellectual growth.
Information Literacy at Illinois State University
ISU, like many other institutions of higher learning, has a mission to teach information
literacy to its students. Toward this end, ISU has established information literacy competencies
and standards. According to these standards, a student must be able to understand the assignment
by accessing appropriate tools and evaluating the credibility of sources (Milner Library, 2004).
Following the assignment’s guidelines, a student must able to incorporate the necessary evidence
ethically and legally (Milner Library, 2004). In this endeavor, ISU provides related instruction in
Information Literacy
7
the basic communication course, through Library Instruction for Language and Communication
(LILAC). During LILAC, students spend one class session with a librarian learning to utilize the
university library’s on-line catalog and electronic periodical databases. Additionally, students
complete a research worksheet on an informative speech topic. However, this type of library
instruction is not the most effective means for students to become information literate (Jacobson
& Mark, 2000). A more comprehensive program of instruction could be explored.
Deficiencies in Information Literacy Skills
A problem arises when students arrive at college without the proper information seeking
skills. Most first-year students are not information literate, due to poor proficiency in database
searches and critical thinking skills (Jacobson & Mark, 2000). Many students, as Jacobson and
Mark (2000) note, know how to use the Internet to access needed information; however, most do
not know how to build and expand effectively upon this knowledge. Thus, the problem is a lack
of information literacy skills. Students are also faced with the somewhat daunting task of sifting
through the abundance of information, distinguishing useful information as opposed to useless
information. Proliferating information resources, due to rapid technological changes and easier
access to resources via the Internet, complicate matters for students (American Association of
College and Research Libraries, 2000; Swanson, 2004; Wilder, 2005). Students “need to know
how to focus their topics, where (in addition to the Internet) to search, and how to evaluate and
use the information they retrieve–skills commonly encompassed in the phrase ‘information
literacy’” (Commission on Higher Education of the Middle States Association of Colleges and
Schools, 1996, p. 15).
Teaching students how to cite information correctly is a fundamental skill (Seamans,
2002). Especially with the vast majority of sources available on the Internet, students need to
Information Literacy
8
able to distinguish between credible and not credible sources. For example, training students
about ethical and legal issues bring many instructors to discussions on plagiarism and the task of
teaching students how to cite their sources correctly. Samson and Granath (2001) posit that
critical thinking skills are essential for this task. Hence, there is no doubt that educators should
be emphasizing higher order thinking, instead of simple rote memorization. Student involvement
goes hand in hand with teaching critical literacy. Most universities attempt to teach information
literacy skills at the surface level by taking students to the library for a one-time tour and
possibly a follow-up assignment. As a result of this, Phillips and Kearley (2003) point out that
even after completing the library skills assignments, students cannot differentiate between a
library catalog and an index, scholarly journal versus a magazine, and web and library sources.
Even after completing the library skills assignments, students could not differentiate between a
library catalog and an index, scholarly journal versus a magazine, and web and library sources
(Phillips & Kearley, 2003).
Information Literacy Instruction
A logical progression should be followed when presenting material meaning that there
should be a linear break down of steps in order for instruction of information literacy to be
successful (Hunt & Birks, 2004; Samson & Granath, 2001). Hunt and Birks (2004) explain that:
To achieve information literacy goals successfully, instructors must first break down the
skills and concepts into their basic components—deconstructing what they may (or may
not) do, without consciously thinking about it, into the smaller incremental steps and
concepts that students need to learn. These components should then be presented
sequentially and in increasing levels of complexity, allowing time for practice and
repetition. (p. 28)
Information Literacy
9
Not only should material be presented in a logical sequential order, this material of improving
research skills are often more effective when used by an instructor actively during more than
once class session (Lederer, 2000).
Additionally, library research should be integrated throughout the learning process and
may be the key to success in facilitating information literacy skills (Lederer, 2000). Moreover,
Seamans (2002) suggests that faculty should work with librarians in designing research
assignments. While the goal of information literacy begins with libraries, success is dependent
on a campus-wide culture of learning (Arnold, 2000). As Hunt and Birks (2004) stress, constant
advocacy to ensure widespread support on campus is essential to the success of information
literacy. Additionally, they note that in order to develop information literate students and to close
the gap between the library and the classroom, it is essential for an integration of the university
library into the curriculum to close the gap. “By closing the gap between the classroom and the
library, instruction is focused within the framework of the information environment. The library
then takes its place as a curriculum integrated entity where students assume responsibility for
their own learning” (Samson & Granath, 2001, p. 5). As Rockman (2002) states:
The challenge ahead for educators is to recognize the value of including information
literacy skills vertically and horizontally throughout the curriculum, integrated into such
areas as lower and upper division general education courses, courses in the major,
electives, and capstone learning experiences. When educators do so, all students will
have the requisite skills, knowledge, and abilities to become both critical consumers and
ethical producers of information. (n.p.)
Large-scale changes in the curriculum requirements at a big university require involvement of
many different, key individuals (Westphal-Johnson & Fitzpatrick, 2002). A great deal of
Information Literacy
10
bureaucratic, political and financial issues are involved in large-scale changes and therefore
involving key players and getting them on your side is very helpful in these processes of change.
In addition, implementing change in terms of incorporating information literary across the entire
university requires the attention, dedication, and involvement from all faculty, staff, and
administration at the university (American Association of College and Research Libraries, 2000).
“Incorporating information literacy across curricula, in all programs and services, and throughout
the administrative life of the university, requires the collaborative efforts of faculty, librarians,
and administrators” (American Association of College and Research Libraries, 2000, p. 4). In
order for the change to be successful, everyone needs to be equally willing to implement it and
carry it out across all levels of the university.
Information Literacy Pedagogy
A variety of successful pedagogical practices can be incorporated into information
literacy instruction. Indeed, Hunt et al. (2005) argue that pedagogy must be modified in the basic
course. Specifically, practices that help facilitate information literacy instruction in the basic
course should be explored. Initially, information literacy must be student-centered and account
for multiple learning styles. Additionally, information literacy must teach e-research skills
(Samson & Granath, 2001). While the process of gathering information in the electronic age has
accelerated, the ability to analyze and evaluate information has lagged behind (Bazillion &
Braun, 1995). Samson and Granath (2001) explain that:
To foster information literate students who graduate with the ability to be life-long
learners, two important elements need to be incorporated into their academic careers—the
ability to conduct electronic research in tandem with evaluation and critical thinking and
the integration of these processes into the university curriculum. (p. 1)
Information Literacy
11
Furthermore, active learning provides an effective method of fostering student achievement
(O’Keefe, 1986). Finally, information literacy instruction should be assignment and content
based (Jacobson & Mark, 2000). In order for information to be used to its full potential, the use
of information must be interactive and the use of discussion must be student-centered (Lederer,
2000; Swanson, 2004). The pedagogy of the best practices of information literacy is based on the
constructivist theory that requires an active learning process (Hunt & Birks, 2004).
Also, in order to be efficient in promoting lifelong learning through information literacy,
the instructional design process should be based on theory and thus organized in a cycle of
activity with clearly defined stages (Stern, 2003). However, in order to address deficiencies in
information literacy, it is essential for higher education to better understand how and why
students gather information and then design instruction to determine “what students know, what
they think they know, and what the need to know” (Stern, 2003, p. 118). First, students must
learn about information before the library instruction session sends them searching (Swanson,
2004).
The innovation of the World Wide Web has drastically changed the way faculty and
students conduct research (Stern, 2003). Information literacy has been defined in many different
ways and recently has been undergoing yet another redefinition to accommodate new
technologies in the 21st century (Sellen, 2002). “Increasingly, information technology skills are
interwoven with, and support, information literacy” (American Association of College and
Research Libraries, 2000, p. 3). Because of the abundance of information available on the
Internet, students in the 21st century are able to easily access information with one click of the
mouse. Robinson and Schlegl (2004) found that students use electronic sources to access
information that had previously been unavailable in print or otherwise difficult to use because of
Information Literacy
12
library collection policies. Thus, the Internet not only allows students easy access to information,
but it also broadens their access to source materials. Stern (2003) addresses the growing use of
the Internet as a research tool and the responsibility of higher education practitioners to educate
students in a proper instructional design to use this tool accurately. In using the Internet as a
skillful research tool, it is essential for learners to be information literate because this digital
information may be unregulated by qualified individuals. Thus, users must be able to critically
evaluate each Internet source for reliability, quality, and validity (Stern, 2003). Although many
students may have confidence in their own information literacy skills and using the Internet as a
research tool, they can definitely “benefit from systematic and cumulative formal instruction on
Internet usage” (p. 117). Additionally, Choinski, Mark, and Murphy (2003) also stated that
students may benefit from additional classroom exercises allowing them to practice evaluating
web sites. These scholars found that numerous students did not highly rate the content and
structure of subscription databases as superior to free publications on the Internet. Also, students
did not seem to understand that not all academic articles are available online in full text. Further,
Sellen (2002) asserts that the World Wide Web and its capability to spread information that
previously had been difficult to access or entirely inaccessible is “changing the paradigm of
scholarly communication” (p. 120). Therefore, she states, information literacy can be a helpful
tool when trying to make sense of the new ways in which information is being created and
disseminated.
In the 21st Century, researchers must be able to effectively utilize electronic resources, in
addition to the traditional reference works, and be able to distinguish the legitimacy and
usefulness of those electronic resources. Sellen (2002) states that giving students the skills and
knowledge needed to be effective citizens in a democratic world is one of the aims of general
Information Literacy
13
education with new technologies adding yet another dimension to this aim. “Minimally,
information literacy gives students the skills to understand the structure, use, and evaluation of
information. Through this understanding students gain a framework to evaluate the impact of
these technologies on the decisions and choices they make” (Sellen, 2002, p. 125).
Assessment of Information Literacy Skills
According to Westphal-Johnson and Fitzpatrick (2002), the results of assessment should
determine which methods most effectively meet the goals of the requirement. Conducting
assessment is, therefore, an important method of determining if the objectives of general
education are being realized. However, it is also important that students immediately use and
apply these newfound skills to assignments not only in their basic courses, but throughout their
lifetime (Jacobson & Mark, 2000). Consequently, assessment is a necessary component of the
pedagogical content knowledge of the basic course.
Assessment of student outcomes in information literacy is most effective if multiple
measures are used. For example, portfolios are an excellent way to determine student success
(Hunt & Birks, 2004, p. 33). As Choinski, Mark, and Murphy (2003) stated, “information
literacy programs are an excellent place for a library to assess student learning programs” (p.
564). Choinski, Mark, and Murphy’s (2003) study examined the use of a conventional grading
rubric as an objective assessment tool measuring student outcomes in an Information Resources
class. Their study showed several weak areas of information literacy including areas of
comprehension, which required higher order thinking as well as evaluating web sites. “Assessing
student learning outcomes means describing and measuring what students should ‘know, think or
do’ when they have completed a particular academic program” (Choinski et al., 2003, p. 563).
Information Literacy
14
There is a dilemma when it comes to gathering data, assessing it and applying its
implications. “We need the results of assessment to determine—for example, does the separate
lecture/section model work effectively—but there is not time to wait for the results of a full-scale
assessment in the timeframe required for institutionalizing the requirements” (Westphal-Johnson
& Fitzpatrick, 2002, p. 95).
Research Questions and Hypotheses
Given that existing literature indicates that active learning and intensive instruction can
improve students’ information literacy skills, it is likely as students are exposed to more
information literacy training that their skills will improve at a rate greater than students who
receive fewer library contact sessions and less intensive library training.
H1:
Students in the experiment group will outperform students in the control group on
the information literacy assessment measure.
Since existing literature indicates that students’ information literacy development is
deficient, it is reasonable to expect that hands-on instruction and visits to the library will have a
relationship to the level of information literacy skills of students.
RQ1: Is there a relationship between the number of library visits and students’
information literacy skills?
While existing literature indicates that students struggle with information literacy, it is
unclear exactly which information literacy skills are of most concern.
RQ2: In what areas of information literacy are students deficient?
The purpose of the present study is to determine the most effective and best practices for
information literacy instruction, expand basic course pedagogy to include information literacy,
and identify the areas of deficiency for students’ information literacy skills.
Information Literacy
15
Methods
Participants
The sample consisted of 369 undergraduate students (140 male and 193 female) from 16
sections of the basic communication course at a large Midwestern university. Eight sections were
assigned to the control group (189 students) and eight sections were assigned to the experiment
group (180 students). Participants were mostly first-year students (85.10%), followed by
unidentified students (9.80%), seniors (2.20%), sophomores (1.90%), and juniors (1.10%). The
mean age of participants was 18.60 years (SD = 1.02). Participants were mostly Caucasian
(81.30%), followed by unidentified (10.00%), African American (3.30%), Latino/Latina
(3.30%), bi-racial or mixed (1.10%), Asian/Pacific Islander (.50%), and other (.50%). The mean
GPA of participants was 2.94 (SD = .72).
Measures
A pre-test, containing 10 items, was administered to all control and experiment group
participants during weeks three and four of the semester (see Appendix A). Specifically, the pretest contained two items asking participants to indicate how many class sessions they had with
the university library and how often they had visited either the physical university library or the
library website. Six multiple choice items tested participants on identifying key words, the
purpose of particular indexes and resources, locating timely information, documenting
information from sources, and differences in types of resources. One item asked participants to
construct a properly formatted APA citation using source information and sample citations. The
final item asked participants to match five information categories to the best source. The KR20
reliability for the pre-test was .71. A post-test was administered to all control and experiment
group participants during weeks 13 and 14 of the semester (see Appendix B). Ennis (2003)
Information Literacy
16
argues that using the same instrument for the pre-test and post-test is preferable to developing
different forms of the instrument since different forms are really different tests. Thus, the pre-test
and post-test contained the same items.
Treatment and Control Conditions
A pre-test/post-test design using control and experiment groups was employed. In
assessing information literacy, pre-test/ post-test measurements are objective in that these tests
can be designed to address the intended student learning outcomes (Choinski et al., 2003). The
control and experiment groups received different information literacy training and instruction.
The control group received the traditional LILAC library session, which consisted on one visit to
the library for instruction on database retrieval. The experiment group received three contact
sessions with librarians, two in-class visits and one in the library, and completed three research
logs (see Appendixes C, D, & E). The experiment group received a lesson covering tests of
evidence (see Appendix F), and a glossary of argumentation terms (see Appendix G).
Data Analysis
An independent samples t-test was used to compare the control and experiment groups. A
MANOVA was calculated to explore differences between means for the groups. The pre-test and
post-test measures of information literacy served as repeated measure, while the experiment and
control groups served as the between variable. Pearson’s r product-moment correlation
coefficient was employed to determine correlations.
Information Literacy
17
References
American Association of College and Research Libraries. (2000). Information literacy
competency standards for higher education. Chicago: Author.
American Library Association. (1989). Presidential Committee on Information Literacy. Final
report. Chicago: Author. Retrieved on April 13, 2005, from
http://www.ala.org/ala/acrl/acrlpubs/whitepapers/presidential.htm
Arnold, J. M. (2000). Who needs information literacy anyway? Gatherings, 24, Kalamazoo, MI:
Friends of the University Libraries, Western Michigan University.
Bazillion, R. J., & Braun, C. (1995). Academic libraries as high-tech gateways: A guide to
design and space decision. Chicago: ALA.
Choinski, E., Mark, A. E., & Murphey, M. (2003). Assessment with rubrics: An efficient
and objective means of assessing student outcomes in an information resources class.
Libraries and the Academy, 3, 563-575.
Commission on Higher Education of the Middle States Association of Colleges and
Schools. (1994). Characteristics of excellence in higher education: Standards for
Acceditation. Philadelphia: Author.
Cutspec, P. A., McPherson, K., & Spiro, J. H. (1999). Branching our to meet the needs of
our students: A model for oral communication assessment and curriculum programs.
Basic Communication Course Annual, 11, 133-163.
Dance, E. X. (2002). Speech and thought: A renewal. Communication Education, 51,
355-359.
DeMars, C. E., Cameron, L., & Erwin, T. D. (2003). Information literacy as foundational:
Determining competence. Journal of General Education, 52, 253-265.
Information Literacy
18
Eisenberg, M. B., Lowe, C. A., & Spitzer, K. L. (2004). Information literacy: Essential
skills for the information age (2nd ed.). Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited.
Ennis, R. H. (2003). Critical thinking assessment. In D. Fasko (Ed.), Critical thinking and
reasoning: Current research, theory, and practice (pp. 293-313). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton.
Friedrich, G. W. (2002). The communication education research agenda. Communication
Education, 51, 372-375.
Hunt, F., & Birks, J. (2004). Best practices in information literacy. Libraries and the
Academy, 4, 27-39.
Hunt, S. K., Novak, D. R., Semlak, J. L., & Meyer, K. R. (2005). Synthesizing the first
15 years of the Basic Communication Course Annual: What research tells us about
effective pedagogy. Basic Communication Course Annual, 17, 1-42.
Jacobson, T. E., & Mark, B. L. (2000). Separating wheat from chaff: Helping first-year
students become information savvy. Journal of General Education, 49, 256-278.
Lakos, A., & Phipps, S. (2004). Creating a culture of assessment: A catalyst for
organizational change. Libraries and the Academy, 4, 345-361.
Lederer, N. (2000). New form(at): Using the web to teach research and critical thinking
skills. Reference Services Review, 28, 130-153.
Milner Library. (2004). Information literacy competencies/standards. Milner Library,
Illinois State University website http://www.mlb.ilstu.edu/learn/ilcomps.htm
Morreale, S. P., Hanna, M. S., Berko, R. M., & Gibson, J. W. (1999). The basic
communication course at U.S. colleges and universities: VI. Basic Communication
Course Annual, 11, 1-36.
Information Literacy
19
O’Keefe, V. P. (1986). Affecting critical thinking through speech. Annandale, VA: ERIC
Clearinghouse on Reading and Communication Skills. (ERIC Document Reproduction
Service No. ED 267 476).
Phillips, L., & Kearley, J. (2003). TIP: Tutorial for information power and campus-wide
information literacy. Reference Services Review, 31, 351-358.
Robinson, A. M., & Schlegl, K. (2004). Student bibliographies improve when professors
provide enforceable guidelines for citations. Libraries and the Academy, 4, 275-290.
Rockman, I. F. (2002). The importance of information literacy. Exchanges: The Online Journal
of Teaching and Learning in the CSU. Retrieved on April 13, 2005, from
http://www.exchangesjournal.org/ex_viewpoints.html
Samson, S., & Granath, K. (2001). Information literacy and the academy. The Montana
Professor, 11(2), 15-17.
Seamans, N. H. (2002). Student perceptions of information literacy: Insights for
librarians. Reference Services Review, 30, 112-123.
Sellen, M. (2002). Information literacy in the general education: A new requirement for
the 21st century. Journal of General Education, 51, 115-126.
Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform.
Harvard Educational Review, 5, 1-22.
Stern, C. (2003). Measuring students’ information literacy competency. In A. Martin &
H. Rader (Eds.), Information and IT literacy: Enabling learning in the 21st century (pp.
112-119). London: Facet.
Swanson, T. A. (2004). A radical step: Implementing a critical information literacy
model. Libraries and the Academy, 4, 259-273.
Information Literacy
20
Westphal-Johnson, N., & Fitzpatrick, M. A. (2002). The role of communication and
writing intensive courses in general education: A five year case study of the University of
Wisconsin-Madison. Journal of General Education, 51, 73-102.
Wilder, S. (2005). Information literacy makes all the wrong assumptions. Chronicle of
Higher Education, 51(18), B13.