Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Report on Current State and Best Practices in Information Literacy
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Report on Current State and Best Practices in Information Literacy


Published on

Published in: Education

  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Total Views
On Slideshare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

No notes for slide


  • 1. ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !7*&(,%(/%61*/,%8,-,*%-/2%%9*$,%:-+,#+*$%#/%;/0(4-,#(/%<#,*-+=%%>1,"(?%6-@-%9-$#@#! ! ! ! ! ! !"#$%&()*+,%"-$%.**/%01/2*2%3#,"%$1&&(,%0(4%,"*%51(&*-/%6(44#$$#(/% %
  • 2. Empower Autonomous Learning through Information Competencies Carla BasiliDate: February 2011
  • 4. EXECUTIVE SUMMARYThe present report constitutes the delivery D1.1 of the Work Package 1: Desk research of theEMPATIC project.The core objectives of the EMPATIC project are to:- draw together and valorise the results of previous Information Literacy initiatives andprojects across the school, university, adult and vocational learning sectors;- use this evidence to influence policy makers’ perceptions and actions to support a markedincrease in piloting and mainstreaming of Information Literacy;- have a significant impact on validating new learning paradigms and strategic thinking oncurriculum reform.Within the work plan of EMPATIC, the Work Package 1 is aimed to:1. Arrive at a practical definition of Information Literacy and an assessment of current thinkingon its role in learner performance and learning outcomes at each level of education, taking intoaccount the findings of LLP projects and other European initiatives.2. Assess to what extent Information Literacy efforts are being employed within mainstreameducation.3. Identify best practices in schools, higher education, adult and vocational educational bodiesin formal and non-formal settings.In view of the above, in its Section 1, the deliverable presents the state of the art in the areaof information literacy, which reflects the most significant global challenges and developmentsin this domain. The section starts with a concise presentation of the role information literacyplays within respect to lifelong learning. Then it provides a concise overview of definitions ofinformation learning suggested by a number of international and national bodies as well asleading researchers. The section does not aim to present a critical analysis of the views oninformation literacy but to illustrate how rich is this concept and how the various points of viewcomplement each other. Special attention is paid to the definitions suggested by bodies fromthe library sector which address the information literacy issue as being of great relevance tothe changing role of the libraries in the information age. Finally, this section offers a summaryof frameworks addressing information literacy, including those suggested by the Association ofCollege and Research Libraries (ACRL), the Australian and New Zealand Information LiteracyFramework (ANZIIL), and the UK Standing Committee of National and University Libraries(SCONUL).Section 2 provides data on the projects in the information literacy domain supported by theEuropean Union, these activities cover the period 1994–2010 and include 79 projects. Thiswork can be seen as a logical continuation of the efforts of EnIL (European network onInformation Literacy) to collect and inform the professional community on the Europeaninitiatives in this area. The section outlines attributes which had been studied and identified forevery single project and are used for initial analysis of the situation in Europe. These attributesinclude identification attributes (name of the initiative, acronym, URL, Leader institution,contacts); country of the coordinator if a multinational initiative; typology of the leadinginstitution; classification of the kind of initiative; source of funding, main focus, targetcommunity, starting date and a description.Even the initial analysis provided in the deliverable identifies some essential specific features ofthe current situation in the EU support of information literacy initiatives. Information literacyprojects are still mainly supported through national initiatives; the specialised fundingprogrammes address them rather as an exception. This might mean that a serious debate onEMPATIC WP1/D1.1 Page 2 of 77
  • 5. the priorities of some of the funding programmes in the EU is needed to position better thework in the information literacy domain;Furthermore, the large part of the initiatives are centred around the concept of IL as a skill andare library-originated in kind.The IL policy dimension is quite neglected and therefore the cases have been selected – wherepossible – in the area of policy initiatives and recommendations.A further criterion adopted for data collection is to maximise the number of countriesconsidered.Finally, Section 3 of the report synthesizes the point of view taken by the Empatic project.Since as Section 1 showed there are multiple and not always converging points of view, thissection is needed to illustrate and justify the EMPATIC framework of analysis. A distinguishedfeature of the Empatic approach is that it identifies three dimensions of Information Literacy,each one supported by a number of argumentations, and complementing each other:Information Literacy as a discipline of study; as a social objective; and as a cognitiveacquisition of individuals. This theoretical background sets the scene for the subsequent workon the policy recommendations which Empatic aims to deliver.EMPATIC WP1/D1.1 Page 3 of 77
  • 6. Table of ContentsEXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................ 2!SECTION 1: STATE OF THE ART IN INFORMATION LITERACY ..................................... 5!1.1. INFORMATION LITERACY AND LIFELONG LEARNING ......................................................... 5!1.2. INFORMATION LITERACY DEFINITIONS .......................................................................... 9! 1.2.1 INFORMATION LITERACY: INTERNATIONAL AND RESEARCH DEFINITIONS ................................... 9! 1.2.2 INFORMATION LITERACY: LIBRARY DEFINITIONS ............................................................. 12! 1.2.3 INFORMATION LITERACY: MAPPING WITH COUPLED CONCEPTS ............................................. 14! 1.2.4 INFORMATION LITERACY AND CRITICAL THINKING .......................................................... 17!1.3. INFORMATION LITERACY IN EDUCATION ...................................................................... 20! 1.3.1 INFORMATION LITERACY IN HIGHER EDUCATION: RELEVANT DEVELOPMENTS ............................ 20! 1.3.2 INFORMATION LITERACY IN SCHOOLS: RELEVANT DEVELOPMENTS ........................................ 23! 1.3.3 IL AMONG THE SKILLS FOR JOB ................................................................................ 25! 1.3.4 IL IN LIFELONG LEARNING: RELEVANT DEVELOPMENTS ..................................................... 27!SECTION 2: BEST PRACTICES IDENTIFICATION ....................................................... 29!2.1 METHODOLOGY ....................................................................................................... 29!2.2 LIST OF INITIAL 87 POTENTIAL INITIATIVES FOR GOOD PRACTICE SELECTION ....................... 32!2.3 DATA CLUSTERING AND ANALYSIS ............................................................................... 46!2.4 IL INSTITUTIONAL BODIES AND NETWORKS ................................................................. 51!SECTION3: THE EMPATIC FRAMEWORK OF ANALYSIS .............................................. 53!3.1 THREE PERSPECTIVES OF ANALYSIS ............................................................................. 53! 3.1.1 INFORMATION LITERACY AS A DISCIPLINE OF STUDY ........................................................ 55! 3.1.2 INFORMATION LITERACY AS SOCIAL OBJECTIVE .............................................................. 61! 3.1.3 INFORMATION LITERACY AS COGNITIVE ACQUISITION OF INDIVIDUALS ................................... 64!3.2. CONSEQUENCES OF THE PROPOSED FRAMEWORK ............................................................ 65!SECTION 4: SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY ..................................................................... 67!REFERENCES ................................................................................................................ 71!LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................................... 74!LIST OF GRAPHS ........................................................................................................... 74!LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................ 74!LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ................................................................................................ 75!EMPATIC WP1/D1.1 Page 4 of 77
  • 7. SECTION 1: STATE OF THE ART IN INFORMATION LITERACY1.1. Information Literacy and Lifelong LearningSince the beginning of the development of information literacy as a global phenomenon, theInformation Literacy definition – released by ALA in 1989 and credited as the earliest and mostenduring definitions of information literacy – underlines a strong association betweenInformation Literacy (IL) and Learning, particularly with respect to the dimension ofautonomous learning through learning how to learn. In fact, in the ALA 1989 definition,a learning-how-to-learn perspective is explicitly proposed, as follows: 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. Producing such a citizenry will require that schools and colleges appreciate and integrate the concept of information literacy into their learning programs and that they play a leadership role in equipping individuals and institutions to take advantage of the opportunities inherent within the information society. Ultimately, information literate people are those who have learned how to learn. They know how to learn because they know how knowledge is organized, how to find information, and how to use information in such a way that others can learn from them. They are people prepared for lifelong learning, because they can always find the information needed for any task or decision at hand.1As to the connection between IL and Lifelong Learning (LLL), a number of influential positionsand statements explicitly recognise their reciprocal interdependence.The above mentioned ALA Report underlines that: What is called for is not a new information studies curriculum but, rather, a restructuring of the learning process. Textbooks, workbooks, and lectures must yield to a learning process based on the information resources available for learning and problem solving throughout peoples lifetimes--to learning experiences that build a lifelong habit of library use. Such a learning process would actively involve students in the process of: - knowing when they have a need for information - identifying information needed to address a given problem or issue - finding needed information and evaluating the information - organizing the information - using the information effectively to address the problem or issue at hand. Such a restructuring of the learning process will not only enhance the critical thinking skills of students but will also empower them for lifelong learning and the effective performance of professional and civic responsibilities2.Similar point of view is expressed and expanded in a number of subsequent studies. Forexample Andretta (Andretta, 2004) suggests to promote IL “as a vehicle of enhancing critical1 AMERICAN LIBRARY ASSOCIATION PRESIDENTIAL COMMITTEE ON INFORMATION LITERACY. Finalreport 10 January 1989. Available on ibid.EMPATIC WP1/D1.1 Page 5 of 77
  • 8. enquiry and self-directed learning as a foundational element of broader focus on lifelonglearning”3In its report “Australian and New Zealand information literacy framework: principles, standardsand practice. 2nd ed, ANZIIL – the Australian and New Zealand Institute for InformationLiteracy – states that Information literacy can be seen as a subset of independent learning, that in turn is a subset of lifelong learningand illustrates the concept through the following figure: Independent Information Lifelong Learning Literacy Learning Fig. 1. Information literacy in the context of lifelong learning. Source: BUNDI, A., ed., 2004. Australian and New Zealand information literacy framework: principles, standards and practice. 2nd ed. Adelaide: Australian and New Zealand Institute for Information Literacy.The same ANZIIL Framework further underlines a strong connection between IL and LLL, citingthe work of (Candy et al., 1994): In 1994, Candy, Crebert and O’Leary’s report Developing lifelong learners through undergraduate education connected information literacy with lifelong learning. Its profile of the lifelong learner included the following information literacy qualities or characteristics: • knowledge of major current resources available in at least one field of study • ability to frame researchable questions in at least one field of study • ability to locate, evaluate, manage and use information in a range of contexts • ability to retrieve information using a variety of media • ability to decode information in a variety of forms: written, statistical, graphs, charts, diagrams and tables • critical evaluation of informationAccording to (Orr et al., 2001), IL3 ANDRETTA, S. (2005) Information Literacy: A Practitioners’ Guide. Oxford: Chandos Publishing, as cited inCRAWFORD, J. (2006) The Culture of Evaluation in Library and Information Services, Chandos Publishing.EMPATIC WP1/D1.1 Page 6 of 77
  • 9. is a vital component of lifelong learning. By ensuring that individuals have the opportunity to develop the intellectual abilities of reasoning and critical thinking, and by helping them construct a framework for learning how to learn”4.The Information Literacy meeting of experts held in Prague on 2003 based its discussion on anumber of white papers, each focused on a different IL aspect. Among them was the whitepaper by P.C. Candy, focused on illustrating the strong association between InformationLiteracy and Lifelong Learning: “information literacy and lifelong learning are inextricably intertwined.5”In turn, the educational goal of lifelong learning has been acknowledged as one of the maindriving forces behind the development of information literacy as a global phenomenon (Bruce,1999)6A significant international position by the National Forum on Information Literacy (NFIL) ofUNESCO and the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA) is THEALEXANDRIA PROCLAMATION. The full text of the proclamation is available, while selected parts of it are given in fig. 2.4 ORR, D, APPLETON, M & WALLIN, M. (2001) Information literacy and flexible delivery: creating a conceptualframework and model, Journal of Academic Librarianship, vol. 27, no. 6, pp. 457-4635 CANDY, P.C. (2002) Information literacy and lifelong learning, White paper prepared for UNESCO, the US NationalCommission on Libraries and Information Science, and the National Forum on Information Literacy, for use at theInformation Literacy, meetings of Experts. Prague: The Czech Republic, pp. 1-17. Available: BRUCE, C. (1999) Information literacy; an international review of programs and research. Auckland ’99 Lianzaconference, 9-12 November 1999, pp.1-9. Available: WP1/D1.1 Page 7 of 77
  • 10. BEACONS OF THE INFORMATION SOCIETY THE ALEXANDRIA PROCLAMATION ON INFORMATION LITERACY AND LIFELONG LEARNING [...] the participants in the High-Level Colloquium on Information Literacy and Lifelong Learning held at the Bibliotheca Alexandrina on 6-9 November 2005 proclaim that Information Literacy and lifelong learning are the beacons of the Information Society, illuminating the courses to development, prosperity and freedom. Information Literacy lies at the core of lifelong learning. It empowers people in all walks of life to seek, evaluate, use and create information effectively to achieve their personal, social, occupational and educational goals. It is a basic human right in a digital world and promotes social inclusion of all nations. Information Literacy - comprises the competencies to recognise information needs and to locate, evaluate, apply and create information within cultural and social contexts; - is crucial to the competitive advantage of individuals, enterprises (especially small and medium enterprises), regions and nations; - provides the key to effective access, use and creation of content to support economic development, education, health and human services, and all other aspects of contemporary societies, and thereby provides the vital foundation for fulfilling the goals of the Millennium Declaration and the World Summit on the Information Society; and - extends beyond current technologies to encompass learning, critical thinking and interpretative skills across professional boundaries and empowers individuals and communities. Within the context of the developing Information Society, we urge governments and intergovernmental organisations to pursue policies and programmes to promote Information Literacy and lifelong learning. In particular, we ask them to support - [...] inclusion of Information Literacy into initial and continuing education for key economic sectors and government policy making and administration, and into the practice of advisors to the business, industry and agriculture sectors; - [...] - recognition of lifelong learning and Information Literacy as key elements for the development of generic capabilities which must be required for the accreditation of all education and training programmes. We affirm that vigorous investment in Information Literacy and lifelong learning strategies creates public value and is essential to the development of the Information Society. Adopted in Alexandria, Egypt at the Bibliotheca Alexandrina on 9 November 20057 Fig. 2- Excerpts from the Alxandria Proclamation on IL and LLLFurthermore, Information literacy standards for student learning, produced by the ALA in1998, links information literacy, independent learning, and social responsibility8.The above statements and positions are only a few voices among many others pointing outhow IL creates the foundation for lifelong learning.7 GARNER, S.D. (2005) High level colloquium on information literacy and lifelong learning. Bibliotheca Alexandrina,Alexandria, Egypt November 6-9, 2005. Report of the meeting. Available: American Library Association (1998) Information literacy standards for student learning: standards and indicators,Available: WP1/D1.1 Page 8 of 77
  • 11. The Empatic project not only recognises this link but aims to contribute to a betterunderstanding of the European experiences and to foster future developments in this spirit.1.2. Information Literacy definitionsInformation literacy is widely recognised as covering a pivotal role in the contemporary societysince it “should be a basic human right in a digital world”, as declared in a thematic debate heldon April 2005 by UNESCO. The thematic debate originated by the acknowledgement of anexplicit link between Information Literacy and the UNESCO’s Information for All programme, asdeclared on the thematic debate website: The specific purpose of the thematic debate was to consult with researchers and other experts in the field of information literacy, both within UNESCO and within our constituent stakeholders, to identify the particular contribution that the Information for All Programme can make in helping to ensure all peoples have the opportunity to become information literate9.This is a voice among many that acknowledges Information Literacy as strategic competencein the Information Society, nevertheless there is still no universal consensus about itsdefinition.Seminal reviewing works are:DOYLE C. (1994). Information literacy in an information society: A concept for the informationage. Syracuse, NY: ERIC Clearinghouse on Information and Technology.BEHRENS, S.J. (1994) A conceptual analysis and historical overview of information literacy,College & Research Libraries, 55(4), 309-322BAWDEN, D. (2001) Information and Digital Literacies: A Review of Concepts. Journal ofDocumentation, 57(2), 218-259.MUTCH, A. (1997) Information literacy: an exploration. International journal of informationmanagement, 1997, 17 (5) pp.377- Information Literacy: international and research definitionsA number of definitions of the IL concept follow. These were suggested by various influentialbodies, mostly international and some national ones, as well as by leading experts in the ILfield. Our aim here is not to provide a detailed analysis of the differences, but to give thereaders a feeling of the different perceptions of IL recurring in the specialised literature.UNESCOThe UNESCO-sponsored Meeting of Experts on Information Literacy, held in Prague onSeptember 2003 and organised by the US National Commission on Library and InformationSciences and the National Forum on Information Literacy, propose the following InformationLiteracy definition: Information Literacy encompasses knowledge of ones information concerns and needs, and the ability to identify, locate, evaluate, organize and effectively create, use and communicate9 UNESCO (2005), Thematic debate on information literacy: final report, 20 April 2005. Available:>EMPATIC WP1/D1.1 Page 9 of 77
  • 12. information to address issues or problems at hand; it is a prerequisite for participating effectively in the Information Society, and is part of the basic human right of life long learning10.National forum on IL (US)Patricia Senn Breivik– already chairman of the US National Forum on Information Literacy – inorder to better underline the connection between IL and LLL, promotes a very effective pictureof IL as an umbrella including ‘computer literacy’, ‘library literacy’, ‘media literacy’, ‘networkliteracy’, ‘visual literacy’, and a blank one (meant to refer to other literacies), with the words‘critical thinking skills’ covering the whole umbrella11. Fig. 3. Information literacy and critical thinking. Source: Senn Breivik (2001)Australian and New Zealand Institute for Information Literacy (ANZIIL)ANZIIL proposes the following definition: Information literate people • recognise a need for information • determine the extent of information needed • access information efficiently • critically evaluate information and its sources • classify, store, manipulate and redraft information collected or generated • incorporate selected information into their knowledge base10 SECTION=201.html11 SENN BREVIK, P. (2001) Information literacy and lifelong learning: The magical partnership. Proceedings of the1st International Lifelong Learning Conference, Central Queensland University, Rockhampton, Queensland, Australia,pp. 1-6.EMPATIC WP1/D1.1 Page 10 of 77
  • 13. • use information effectively to learn, create new knowledge, solve problems and make decisions • understand economic, legal, social, political and cultural issues in the use of information • access and use information ethically and legally • use information and knowledge for participative citizenship and social responsibility • experience information literacy as part of independent learning and lifelong learning. (ANZIIL, 2004)Joint Information Systems Committee, UKIn the UK, the Joint Information Systems Committee sustains the concept of i-Skills: You may not have heard the term ‘i-skills’ up to now, but probably terms such as information skills, e-literacy, information literacy, knowledge management and research skills are more familiar. This guide uses the term i-skills to encompass all of these. i-Skills are defined as: the ability to identify, assess, retrieve, evaluate, adapt, organise and communicate information within an iterative context of review and reflection12.Information Literacy as a Liberal ArtA research point of view about IL conception comes from the work of Shapiro and Hughes, intheir proposal of IL as a new liberal art13, as follows: Information and computer literacy, in the conventional sense, are functionally valuable technical skills. But information literacy should in fact be conceived more broadly as a new liberal art that extends from knowing how to use computers and access information to critical reflection on the nature of information itself, its technical infrastructure, and its social, cultural and even philosophical context and impact - as essential to the mental framework of the educated information-age citizen as the trivium of basic liberal arts (grammar, logic and rhetoric) was to the educated person in medieval society.More specifically, Shapiro and Hughes propose that an IL curriculum should be based on a“critical conception of a more humanistic sort” and the proposed curriculum includes thefollowing seven dimensions: Tool literacy, or the ability to understand and use the practical and conceptual tools of current information technology, including software, hardware and multimedia, that are relevant to education and the areas of work and professional life that the individual expects to inhabit. This can be taken to include the basics of computer and network applications as well as fundamental concepts of algorithms, data structures, and network topologies and protocols. Resource literacy, or the ability to understand the form, format, location and access methods of information resources, especially daily expanding networked information resources. This is practically identical with librarians conceptions of information literacy, and includes concepts of the classification and organization of such resources. Social-structural literacy, or knowing that and how information is socially situated and produced. This means knowing about how information fits into the life of groups; about the institutions and social networks - such as the universities, libraries, researcher communities, corporations, government agencies, community groups - that create and organize information and knowledge;12 Available: HUGHES, S., & SHAPIRO, J. (1996) Information Literacy as a Liberal Art. Educom Review, 31(2). Available: WP1/D1.1 Page 11 of 77
  • 14. and the social processes through which it is generated - such as the trajectory of publication of scholarly articles (peer review, etc.), the relationship between a Listserv and a shared interest group, or the audience served by a specialized library or Web site. Research literacy, or the ability to understand and use the IT-based tools relevant to the work of todays researcher and scholar. For those in graduate education, this would include discipline- related computer software for quantitative analysis, qualitative analysis and simulation, as well as an understanding of the conceptual and analytical limitations of such software. Publishing literacy, or the ability to format and publish research and ideas electronically, in textual and multimedia forms (including via World Wide Web, electronic mail and distribution lists, and CD-ROMs), to introduce them into the electronic public realm and the electronic community of scholars. Writing is always shaped by its tools and its audience. Computer tools and network audiences represent genuine changes in writing itself. Emerging technology literacy, or the ability to ongoingly adapt to, understand, evaluate and make use of the continually emerging innovations in information technology so as not to be a prisoner of prior tools and resources, and to make intelligent decisions about the adoption of new ones. Clearly this includes understanding of the human, organizational and social context of technologies as well as criteria for their evaluation. Critical literacy, or the ability to evaluate critically the intellectual, human and social strengths and weaknesses, potentials and limits, benefits and costs of information technologies. This would need to include a historical perspective (e.g. the connection between algorithmic thinking, formalization in mathematics, and the development of Western science and rationality and their limits); a philosophical perspective (current debates in the philosophy of technology, the critique of instrumental reason, the possibility and nature of artificial intelligence); a sociopolitical perspective (e.g. the impact of information technology on work, public policy issues in the development of a global information infrastructure); and a cultural perspective (e.g. current discussions of the virtual body and of the definition of human being as an information-processing machine) (Shapiro- Hughes, 1996).Information Literacy as Information Behaviour in the Information SocietyA further broader, not merely technical, perspective is suggested by Webber and Johnston14: Information literacy is the adoption of appropriate information behaviour to identify, through whatever channel or medium, information well fitted to information needs, leading to wise and ethical use of information in society. (Webber and Johnston, 2003)1.2.2 Information Literacy: library definitionsThe library sector is following particularly closely the developments in the IL field and plays aspecial role in the promotion and wider adoption of the concept. Below some key definitionssuggested by international and national library associations are presented as they aredescribed by the CILIP CSG Information Literacy Group1514 Webber, S. and Johnston, B. (2003) Information literacy in the United Kingdom: a critical review. In: Basili, C. (Ed)Information Literacy in Europe. Rome: Italian National Research Council. 258-283.15 Available: WP1/D1.1 Page 12 of 77
  • 15. ALA , 1989The most widely recognized and used definition of IL comes from the Final Report of thePresidential Committee on Information Literacy, where is declared 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.CILIPCILIP – the UK Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals – in 2003 definedIL as: “Information literacy is knowing when and why you need information, where to find it, and how to evaluate, use and communicate it in an ethical manner. This definition implies several skills. We believe that the skills (or competencies) that are required to be information literate require an understanding of: - a need for information - the resources available - how to find information - the need to evaluate results - how to work with or exploit results - ethics and responsibility of use - how to communicate or share your findings - how to manage your findings.” (CILIP, 200316SCONULSCONUL (Society of College, National and University Libraries) has a view of IL as a set ofseven competency dimensions, built upon basic library and IT skills that constitute thefoundation for them. SCONUL supplies a visual representation of this conception (see figure4)17.16 Available: Available: WP1/D1.1 Page 13 of 77
  • 16. Fig. 4 - The SCONUL proposalThe definitions of IL from the library sector – evolving from the original focus on LibraryInstruction - are strongly connected to the operative use of information and usually do notaddress the larger context of learning. However some of them provide a useful finergranularity view on the specific types of skills which constitute the IL as perceived nowadays.1.2.3 Information Literacy: mapping with coupled conceptsIn the specialised literature a number of concepts contiguous to IL are sustained, namelymedia literacy, digital or computer or ICT literacy.Those concepts are often used interchangeably or with largely overlapping meaning, thereforethe task of identifying universal accepted definitions for them is not easy.Nevertheless, the Partnership for 21st Century Skills (P21) – a national US organization thatadvocates for 21st century readiness for every student – developed a Framework for 21stEMPATIC WP1/D1.1 Page 14 of 77
  • 17. Century Learning18 that can be of use in both positioning IL among the strategic competenciesfor 21st learners, and for better understanding the distinction between different kinds ofliteracy.The Framework is aimed at helping help students master the multi-dimensional abilitiesrequired of them in the 21st century.The key elements of 21st century learning are represented in the graphic in fig.5 below. Fig. 5 - 21st Century Skills. Source: Parnership for 21st century skillsThe graphic represents both 21st century skills student outcomes (as represented by thearches of the rainbow) and 21st century skills support systems (as represented by the pools atthe bottom), namely the systems that must be aligned to produce 21st century outcomes fortoday’s students.While the graphic represents each element distinctly for descriptive purposes, the Partnershipviews all the components as fully interconnected in the process of 21st century teaching andlearning.The elements described below are the critical systems necessary to ensure 21st centuryreadiness for every student. Twenty-first century standards, assessments, curriculum,instruction, professional development and learning environments must be aligned to produce asupport system that produces 21st century outcomes for today’s students19.18 Available: Source: WP1/D1.1 Page 15 of 77
  • 18. The skills, knowledge and expertise students should master to succeed in work and life in the21st century (Twenty-First Century Student Outcomes) are grouped into four classes, as listedbelow.1. Core Subjects and 21st Century Themes2. Learning and Innovation Skills Creativity and Innovation Critical Thinking and Problem Solving Communication and Collaboration3. Information, Media and Technology Skills Information Literacy Media Literacy ICT Literacy4. Life and Career Skills Fig. 6 21st century skills - source: P21Focussing on class number 3 “Information, Media and Technology Skills” in fig.6, it is evidentthe positioning of IL among the strategic skills and its distinction from other contiguousliteracies. In fact, looking into more detail into the descriptions of each literacy can help inunderstanding their differentiation.Information LiteracyAccess and Evaluate Information Access information efficiently (time) and effectively (sources) Evaluate information critically and competentlyUse and Manage Information Use information accurately and creatively for the issue or problem at hand Manage the flow of information from a wide variety of sources Apply a fundamental understanding of the ethical/legal issues surrounding the access and use of information Fig. 7 - Information Literacy within 21st Century Skills (Source P21 framework)EMPATIC WP1/D1.1 Page 16 of 77
  • 19. Media LiteracyAnalyze Media Understand both how and why media messages are constructed, and for what purposes Examine how individuals interpret messages differently, how values and points of view are included or excluded, and how media can influence beliefs and behaviours Apply a fundamental understanding of the ethical/legal issues surrounding the access and use of mediaCreate Media Products Understand and utilize the most appropriate media creation tools, characteristics and conventions Understand and effectively utilize the most appropriate expressions and interpretations in diverse, multi-cultural environments Fig. 8 - Media Literacy within 21st Century Skills (Source P21 framework)ICT LiteracyApply Technology Effectively Use technology as a tool to research, organize, evaluate and communicate information Use digital technologies (computers, PDAs, media players, GPS, etc.), communication/networking tools and social networks appropriately to access, manage, integrate, evaluate and create information to successfully function in a knowledge economy Apply a fundamental understanding of the ethical/legal issues surrounding the access and use of information technologies Fig. 9 - ICT or digital Literacy within 21st Century Skills (Source P21 framework)Besides the usefulness in setting the scene for IL as strategic skill and for its differentiationfrom other (and equally strategic) literacies, the P21 framework has been selected sinceamong the P21 partners is the American Association of School Librarians, responsible for therelease in 2007 of the "Standards for the 21st Century Learner", a document where is given avery effective description of IL as intrinsically connected to critical thinking.1.2.4 Information Literacy and Critical ThinkingThe strong connection between IL and Critical Thinking is well described in the "Standards forthe 21st Century Learner" developed by AASL that identifies the following four classes of skills:EMPATIC WP1/D1.1 Page 17 of 77
  • 20. 1. Inquire, think critically, and gain knowledge.2. Draw conclusions, make informed decisions, apply knowledge to new situations, and createnew knowledge.3. Share knowledge and participate ethically and productively as members of our democraticsociety.4. Pursue personal and aesthetic growth. Fig. 10 - Standards for the 21st Century Learner, AASL, 2007Each class is described with further details and the first group of strategic skills “Inquire, thinkcritically, and gain knowledge” is specified as follows.1. Inquire, think critically, and gain knowledge.1.1 Skills1.1.1 Follow an inquiry- based process in seeking knowledge in curricular subjects, and makethe real-world connection for using this process in own life.1.1.2 Use prior and background knowledge as context for new learning.1.1.3 Develop and refine a range of questions to frame the search for new understanding.1.1.4 Find, evaluate, and select appropriate sources to answer questions.1.1.5 Evaluate information found in selected sources on the basis of accuracy, validity,appropriateness for needs, importance, and social and cultural context.1.1.6 Read, view, and listen for information presented in any format (e.g., textual, visual,media, digital) in order to make inferences and gather meaning.1.1.7 Make sense of information gathered from diverse sources by identifying misconceptions,main and supporting ideas, conflicting information, and point of view or bias.1.1.8 Demonstrate mastery of technology tools for accessing information and pursuing inquiry.1.1.9 Collaborate with others to broaden and deepen understanding.- Fig. 11- Class1 skills - - Standards for the 21st Century Learner, AASL, 2007EMPATIC WP1/D1.1 Page 18 of 77
  • 21. 1. Inquire, think critically, and gain knowledge.1.2 Dispositions in Action1.2.1 Display initiative and engagement by posing questions and investigating the answersbeyond the collection of superficial facts.1.2.2 Demonstrate confidence and self-direction by making independent choices in theselection of resources and information.1.2.3 Demonstrate creativity by using multiple resources and formats.1.2.4 Maintain a critical stance by questioning the validity and accuracy of all information.1.2.5 Demonstrate adaptability by changing the inquiry focus, questions, resources, orstrategies when necessary to achieve success.1.2.6 Display emotional resilience by persisting in information searching despite challenges.1.2.7 Display persistence by continuing to pursue information to gain a broad perspective. Fig. 12 - Class1 Dispositions in Action - Standards for the 21st Century Learner, AASL, 20071. Inquire, think critically, and gain knowledge.1.3 Responsibilities1.3.1 Respect copyright/ intellectual property rights of creators and producers.1.3.2 Seek divergent perspectives during information gathering and assessment.1.3.3 Follow ethical and legal guidelines in gathering and using information.1.3.4 Contribute to the exchange of ideas within the learning community.1.3.5 Use information technology responsibly.1.4 Self-Assessment Strategies1.4.1 Monitor own information-seeking processes for effectiveness and progress, and adapt asnecessary.1.4.2 Use interaction with and feedback from teachers and peers to guide own inquiry process.1.4.3 Monitor gathered information, and assess for gaps or weaknesses.1.4.4 Seek appropriate help when it is needed. Fig. 13 -- Class1-Responsibilities - Standards for the 21st Century Learner, AASL, 2007The set of shaded sub-skills in figs. 10÷13 provides for IL a description of a finer granularitywith respect to the IL definitions most commonly cited in literature (see §1.2 in this section)and further underlines how strongly IL and critical thinking are intrinsically interrelated.EMPATIC WP1/D1.1 Page 19 of 77
  • 22. 1.3. Information Literacy in EducationA recent publication analyses and discusses how IL is a multidimensional phenomenon crossingthe borders of both Information and Education policies20. The cross-borders view of Information Literacy – between Information and Education policies – widens the concept of Information Literacy, traditionally limited to the Information policy scope. Such a wider perspective is required due to a number of influential factors arising from the full establishment of the so-called Information Society, such as the mass access to information, the uncontrolled production process of large amounts of information, the constraints imposed on Higher Education by the market and by a new kind of demand from the labour market (Basili, 2008)21.Already in 1975, the Unesco NATIS Programme released a set of guidelines for NationalInformation Policies, aimed at developing national information infrastructures, where users areconsidered the fulcrum of the whole infrastructure. An adequate system to provide access to information should include the following features: • potential users would be regarded as part of the system. Their education would assist them to diagnose their problems and be such that they would not fear revealing their ignorance when seeking assistance. • The educational system would recognise, as Johnson said, that: “Knowledge is of two kinds. We know a subject ourselves, or we know where we can find information upon it”22.The last point cited from (Urquhart, 1975) can be used as an effective synthesis of the need tointegrate IL into the whole educational system, namely from schools to university, but thewhole set of NATIS indications includes also the generic user of information, namely adults andworkers. These needs are even more pressing today and a number of developments haveoccurred since 1975 in each educational area. Among them, the most meaningful are set outin the following paragraphs.1.3.1 Information Literacy in Higher Education: relevant developmentsInformation Literacy as a graduate attributeThe ALA 1989 definition has had a great impact on the Higher Education sector.20 Information Literacy at the crossroad of Education and Information Policies in Europe, Carla BASILI (ed.),Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche, Rome, 2008, 301 pp.21 Basili, C., 2008, Information and education policies in Europe: key factors influencing information literacyacademic policies in Europe . In: Information Literacy at the crossroad of Education and Information Policies inEurope, pp. 18-3222 Urquhart, D.J. (1975). Developing a National Information Policy. A NATIS guideline. Unesco, 24 pp: The issue ofuser education is at the top of the list of priorities for “Developing the Information Plan”:1. improving the education of potential users;2. the training of librarians and information officers;3. improving access to existing services;4. improving and expanding existing services;5. creating new services.EMPATIC WP1/D1.1 Page 20 of 77
  • 23. In the USA the already mentioned ACRL IL standards for Higher Education23 were defined in1999 by the Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL) and translated into: Finnish,French, German, Greek, Italian, Spanish, Chinese, Japanese, and Iranian.In Australia, the Australian and New Zealand Institute for Information Literacy released thesecond edition of the Australian and New Zealand Information Literacy Framework24 in 2004.The educational philosophy underpinning the Australian IL standards strongly promotes theidea that IL should be tightly integrated into teaching and learning activities. The standardssuggest that all academic curricula be reformed in line with its recommendations as a matterof university-wide policy.A major policy parameter in the assessment exercise of Australian universities is the set ofgraduate attributes that each university must declare in its mission statement. According to(Barrie, 2004): … generic graduate attributes in Australia have come to be accepted as the skills, knowledge and abilities of university graduates, beyond disciplinary content knowledge, which are applicable to a range of contexts. It is intended that university students acquire these qualities as one of the outcomes of successfully completing any undergraduate degree at university.This statement has been widely acknowledged and IL has been included among the set ofgraduate attributes, so that, already in 2004, 53.8% of Australian Universities had included ILamong the graduate attributes declared in their mission statement.One example among many others is the University of Sydney, which in 2002 started a projectfor revising its graduate attributes policy, according to a multidimensional classification ofattributes. The revised policy specifies two levels of attributes. There are three overarching graduate attributes – Scholarship, Lifelong Learning, and Global Citizenship – which reflect the research intensive nature of the University, its scholarly values in relation to research-led teaching, and the place of its graduates in a global society. These overarching attributes represent combinations of five clusters of more specific attributes, which can be interpreted or contextualised differently in different disciplinary domains. These are in turn supported by generic foundation skills and abilities underpinned by basic competencies. (Barrie, 2004)23 Association of College and Research Libraries, Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education,Jan 2000 Available: WP1/D1.1 Page 21 of 77
  • 24. Fig. 14. Graphical representation of graduate attributes and their functional aims (Barrie, 2004).Furthermore, Barrie refers to the definition by the HE Council of 1992, from which most of thedefinitions for “graduate attributes” derive: These are skills, personal attributes and values, which should be acquired by all graduates regardless of their discipline or field of study. In other words, they should represent the central achievements of higher education as a process. (HEC, 1992, p. 20)As to the European context, the commitment to skill development of graduate attributes hasbeen adopted by the European Union policies on Higher Education under the name of “learningoutcomes” and officially recommended in 2005 at the meeting in Bergen of the Ministers of theBologna Process signatory states. The Bergen Communiqué, in fact, officially adopted the“Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area”. TheGuidelines - produced by the European Network for Quality Assurance in Higher Education(ENQA)25 – recognise the fundamental role of the learning attributes approach in achievingtransparency and comparability of competencies within the European Higher Education Area.The Empatic vision of IL integration into the HE system - which is strictly connected to thescope of the European network on Information Literacy26 launched in 2001 - is orientedtowards a policy inspired by the Bologna process for Higher Education in Europe.The Bologna process, aimed at establishing a European Higher Education Area, operates alonga number of action lines. In the reasoning about the institutionalisation of IL within the HigherEducation context, of particular interest are the “Bologna” activities of curriculum design andharmonisation, together with the introduction of the concept of learning outcomes.The first series of activities are now being carried out through the “Tuning EducationalStructures in Europe” project, which is aimed at;• "Tune" educational structures in Europe, and thereby aid the development of the European Higher Education Area;25 ENQA (2005) Report on Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area,Helsinki, ENQA.26 WP1/D1.1 Page 22 of 77
  • 25. • Open up a debate on the nature and importance of subject-specific and general competences, involving all stakeholders, including academics, graduates and employers;• Identify and exchange information on common subject-based reference points, curricula content, learning outcomes and methods of teaching, learning and assessment;• Improve European co-operation and collaboration in the development of the quality, effectiveness and transparency of European higher education by examining ECTS credits and other suitable devices to enhance progress.Among the Tuning project activities, it is useful to recall the analysis – for each course of studyand disciplinary sector –of the differences existing among the curricula of the universities inEurope, in order to make more comparable (and therefore transferable) curricula of the samesubject area.The concept of learning outcomes is strictly related to the quality assessment procedures ofuniversities, which are asked to demonstrate the efficient achievement of these, particularly inresponse to calls for accountability27. It is a concept quite new in Europe, while elsewhere, forexample in Australia and the USA, is among the well-established criteria for universities toobtain government funds. In fact, in Australia and the USA, the learning outcomes areexplicitly declared into the mission of the single university and constitute the set ofcompetencies that graduates are expected to acquire. They must be measurable in order togive evidence of the successful completion of a cycle of study. It is worth to note that in mostAustralian universities, IL is included among the learning outcomes (or graduate attributes asthey are also known in the USA)28.EMPATIC suggestion is to include IL among the learning outcomes, specifically among thegeneric competencies defined by the Tuning project.1.3.2 Information Literacy in Schools: relevant developmentsThe rationale behind the need of diffusion IL in schools is well summarised by Plotnick: Educational reform and restructuring make information literacy skills a necessity as students seek to construct their own knowledge and create their own understandings. - Educators are selecting various forms of resource-based learning (authentic learning, problem- based learning and work-based learning) to help students focus on the process and to help students learn from the content. Information literacy skills are necessary components of each. - The process approach to education is requiring new forms of student assessment. Students demonstrate their skills, assess their own learning, and evaluate the processes by which this learning has been achieved by preparing portfolios, learning. (Plotnick, 199929)The first formal initiative pointing out the need of Educating students to information date backto 1988, when the American Association of School Librarians (AASL) published “InformationPower: Guidelines for school library Media Programs” in collaboration with the Association for27 BARRIE, S.C. (2005) Rethinking Generic Graduate Attributes, HERDSA News, Draft, 5 March 200528 PLOTNICK, E. Information Literacy. ERIC- digest. ED427777EMPATIC WP1/D1.1 Page 23 of 77
  • 26. Educational Communications and Technology (AECT)30. This publication, along with its follow-up published in 1998, is widely recognised as providing an extremely helpful road map to .guide educators into the next century The guidelines, in fact, provide standards forinformation literacy learning, as well as indicators for each standard. These standards creategoals for all educators.Subsequent results by AASL are the following families of standards:Information Literacy Standards for Student Learning, 199831Standards for the 21st Century Learner, 200732Outside the library community, the Big6 model is largely known and used approach to teachingIL. From the Big6 website33: Developed by educators Mike Eisenberg and Bob Berkowitz, the Big6 is the most widely-known and widely-used approach to teaching information and technology skills in the world. The Big6 is an information and technology literacy model and curriculum, implemented in thousands of schools – K through higher education. Some people call the Big6 an information problem-solving strategy because with the Big6, students are able to handle any problem, assignment, decision or task. Here are the six stages we call the Big6. Two sub-stages are part of each main category in the Big6 model: 1. Task Definition 1.1 Define the information problem 1.2 Identify information needed 2. Information Seeking Strategies 2.1 Determine all possible sources 2.2 Select the best sources 3. Location and Access 3.1 Locate sources (intellectually and physically) 3.2 Find information within sources 4. Use of Information 4.1 Engage (e.g., read, hear, view, touch) 4.2 Extract relevant information 5. Synthesis 5.1 Organize from multiple sources 5.2 Present the information 6. Evaluation 6.1 Judge the product (effectiveness) 6.2 Judge the process (efficiency)30 AASL and Association for Educational Communications and Technology, Information Power: Guidelines for SchoolLibrary Media Programs (Chicago: ALA, 1988)31 American Association of School Librarians and the Association for Educational Communications and Technology,Information Literacy Standards for Student Learning, 1998 Available: Already mentioned in § 1.3.4 of this Report Available: WP1/D1.1 Page 24 of 77
  • 27. Specifically devoted to IL in schools are the books by Eisenberg and Berkowitz:Eisenberg, M. B.- Berkowitz, R. E. (1999). Teaching information & technology skills: The Big6in elementary schools. Worthington, Ohio: Linworth Publishing.Eisenberg, M. B.- Berkowitz, R. E. (2000). Teaching information & technology skills: The Big6in secondary schools. Worthington, Ohio: Linworth Publishing.1.3.3 IL among the skills for JobA major starting point for the discussion of IL in the workplace is that of the “intelligentorganisation” illustrated by Choo in 1995 as follows:The intelligent organization is able to mobilize the different kinds of knowledge that exist in the organization in order toenhance performance. It pursues goals in a changing environment by adapting behaviour according to knowledge aboutitself and the world it thrives in. The intelligent organization is therefore a learning organization that is skilled atcreating, acquiring, organizing, and sharing knowledge, and at applying this knowledge to design its behaviour.Organizational learning depends critically upon information management -- the capacity to harness the organizationsinformation resources and information capabilities to energize organizational growth. Information management is acycle of processes that support the organizations learning activities: identifying information needs, acquiringinformation, organizing and storing information, developing information products and services, distributinginformation, and using information. 34From the above definition it is evident how much the role of information in the intelligentorganisation is strategic and, consequently, how much necessary is the ability to dominate theuniverse of information located both inside and outside the organisation.Kirton and Barham provide a review of IL in the workplace, focussing on the need for ILawareness within organisations35. With the exponential increase in information, its management and use have become an important issue in the workplace, yet knowledge management or information literacy is not adequately addressed by most organisations or professions (Abell 2000; Candy 1998; OSullivan 2002; Winterman, Skelton and Abell 2003). A report by TFPL Ltd (1991) however did find that chief executives valued knowledge management second only to globalisation as essential for their organisations. Lloyd (2003) states that in the ...knowledge economy, the ability of the individual to become information literate and to engage effectively the operations skills of information literacy are attributes in which organisations should invest, in terms of both recruitment and training. A report by KPMG Consulting (2000) found that companies risked wasting their investment in the technology used to manage information if they did not tackle the human aspect, which has been identified as an essential focus in knowledge management (Abell 2000). Employees continued to have problems with information overload, information anxiety, disinformation or misinformation, insufficient time, inadequate technological skills to share knowledge, to have difficulty locating information and were frequently reinventing the wheel. While information is highly valued within most organisations (Candy 1998), many members of the workforce are unable to deal effectively34 CHOO, C.W. Information Management for the Intelligent Organization: Roles and Implications for the InformationProfessions. In: Proceedings of the Digital Libraries Conference, March 27-28, 1995, Singapore. Available: - CHOO, C. W. (1995). Information Management for the IntelligentOrganization: The Art of Scanning the Environment. Medford, NJ: Information Today.35 KIRTON, J.- BARHAM, L. (2005) Information Literacy in the Workplace. The Australian Library Journal, 54(4)p.365-376EMPATIC WP1/D1.1 Page 25 of 77
  • 28. with it in their everyday work (De Ruiter 2002; OSullivan 2002; Rader 2002; Winterman, Skelton and Abell 2003).In their review of the specialised literature, Kirton and Barham also cites the work from Cheukto underline that: [....] Cheuks UNESCO White Paper (2002) provides examples of the lack of information literacy skills in the workplace and how this affects the productivity of employees, suggests practices to improve performance and discusses the barriers to promoting information literacy in the workplace and how to overcome these, as well as the relationship between knowledge management and information literacy.Even the term “Information Literacy” is not used in the workplace where Synonyms such as working smarter, information skills, information resources training, information discovery, and information management have been used. (Kirton-Bahram, 2005)Surprisingly, the analysis by Kirton and Bahram does not include the concept of“environmental scanning”, namely representing the need for a company to compete within amarket context which must be known to the company.Moreover, a major point arising from the Kirton- Bahram analysis is the character ofcomplexity that IL assumes into the context of the knowledge (or intelligent) organisation: Winterman, Skelton and Abell (2003) also identified barriers to the development of such programs in the workplace. They found that the scope and content of the concept was not well defined or detailed, with the degree of agreement as to exactly what skills were relevant and which levels of these were needed varying widely between organisations. [....] Bawden and Robinson (2002) found that information literacy must be contextualised, relevantly illustrated, and presented in ways reflecting the needs of the range of learners found in the individual workplace.A meaningful initiative for IL in vocational education is the SCANS report, produced by theSecretarys Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills (SCANS) – a commission appointed in1990 by the Secretary of Labour of the US Department of Labour, to determine the skills ouryoung people need to succeed in the world of work.The commissions fundamental purpose was to encourage a high-performance economycharacterized by high-skill, high-wage employment. Although the commission completed itswork in 1992, its findings and recommendations continue to be a valuable source ofinformation for individuals and organizations involved in education and workforcedevelopment..36Table 1 below illustrates the set of skills for job identified by the SCAN commission.36 WP1/D1.1 Page 26 of 77
  • 29. SCANS Competencies Resources Allocates Time Allocates Money Allocates Material and Facility Resources Allocates Human Resources Information Acquires and Evaluates Information Organizes and Maintains Information Interprets and Communicates Information Uses Computers to Process Information Interpersonal Participates as a Member of a Team Teaches Others Serves Clients/Customers Exercises Leadership Negotiates to Arrive at a Decision Works with Cultural Diversity Systems Understands Systems Monitors and Corrects Performance Improves and Designs Systems Technology Selects Technology Applies Technology to Task Maintains and Troubleshoots Technology Tab. 1 - Skills and Tasks for Jobs: A SCANS Report for America 200037The SCANS Report is of particular interest for the goals of the EMPATIC project , since itconstitutes a gateway between school learning and workplace efficiency. Therefore, the SCANSReport will be object of further analysis by WP-4 of EMPATIC.1.3.4 IL in Lifelong Learning: relevant developmentsIn § 1.1 of this section the connection between IL and LLL has been already pointed out.Nevertheless, here it is important to recall that in 2006 the European Union recommends thatMember States develop the provision of key competencies and use the ‘Key Competencesfor Lifelong Learning — A European Reference Framework’, that defines the set of keycompetences described in fig.15 below.37 What Work Requires of Schools: A SCANS Report for America 2000, U.S. Department of Labour, June 1991EMPATIC WP1/D1.1 Page 27 of 77
  • 30. Key CompetencesCompetences are defined here as a combination of knowledge, skills and attitudes appropriateto the context. Key competences are those which all individuals need for personal fulfilmentand development, active citizenship, social inclusion and employment.The Reference Framework sets out eight key competences:1) Communication in the mother tongue;2) Communication in foreign languages;3) Mathematical competence and basic competences in science and technology;4) Digital competence;5) Learning to learn;6) Social and civic competences;7) Sense of initiative and entrepreneurship; and8) Cultural awareness and expression.The key competences are all considered equally important, because each of them cancontribute to a successful life in a knowledge society. Many of the competences overlap andinterlock: aspects essential to one domain will support competence in another. Competence inthe fundamental basic skills of language, literacy, numeracy and in information andcommunication technologies (ICT) is an essential foundation for learning, and learning to learnsupports all learning activities. There are a number of themes that are applied throughout theReference Framework: critical thinking, creativity, initiative, problem solving, risk assessment,decision taking, and constructive management of feelings play a role in all eight keycompetences38. Fig. 15 - Key Competences for Lifelong Learning — A European Reference FrameworkCompared with the set of competencies in fig.15, IL includes those shown in bold, in suchconfirming how deeply related are IL and LLL, de facto, even if not explicitly declared.38 (30.12.2006 EN Official Journal of the European Union L 394/13) Available: WP1/D1.1 Page 28 of 77
  • 31. SECTION 2: BEST PRACTICES IDENTIFICATIONThe earlier and most diffused IL initiatives are those developed in the US since 1989 and in theAustralian and new Zealand (ANZ) area since 1999. Both in US and ANZ, in fact, a widespreadrecognition of the IL importance gave rise to national policies aimed at setting coherent andenabling contexts for IL developments.On the contrary, Europe has not yet matured the awareness of the role that IL can assume,independently – even if in synergy – from other literacies, such as computer literacy or digitalliteracy or media literacy.As a consequence of being a neglected policy issue, European IL initiatives have beendeveloped in a fragmented and episodic manner (Basili, 2003)39. This recognition was therationale behind the launch in 2003 of the European network on Information Literacy (EnIL),aimed at both setting a common research agenda among IL researchers in Europe anddiffusion a Culture of Information in Europe40.A more detailed comparison of the European situation with respect to US and ANZ will be partof the Empatic final report, aimed at streaming the IL issue within the attention of policymakers.In view of the above, his section of the report is aimed at pursuing both the following tasks:- providing a first systematically gathered information about how the EU funding activities have been addressed IL;- collecting a set of best practices to be further analysed by the next phases of the Empatic project.2.1 MethodologyThe process of collecting data on IL initiatives have taken into account the nature of theEmpatic project as an action transversal to all the four areas of the EU Lifelong Learningprogramme (Erasmus, Comenius, Grundtvig, Leonardo) segmented by educational level(university, school, adult and vocational). Therefore, a first step has been to analyse thedatabases of EU funded projects, and more specifically, the following sources:ADAM (Advanced Data Archive and Management System) - Leonardo da Vinci Projects andProducts Portal - SOCRATES Projects Database (until 2004 ) - Community Research and Development Information Service were the natural source of information, but the project also gathered information onother projects funded in a range of programmes such as FP3-FP7, ESF, etc. .39 Basili, C. (ed.). (2003). Information literacy in Europe. A first insight into the state of the art of information literacyin the European Union. Roma: Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche40 WP1/D1.1 Page 29 of 77
  • 32. The national initiatives have been derived mainly from:The European Observatory on IL Policies and Research source produced by the CNR-Ceris within the research activities of the European network onInformation Literacy.The EnIL Observatory covers a set of European countries41, and therefore the Empatic list ofbest practices concentrates on the 10 countries there represented: Austria, Denmark, Estonia,Finland, Germany, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, and Spain. UK initiatives have been chosenbased on their meaningfulness, while the Turkish and Polish initiatives have been identified,respectively, by Jagu and TDK Empatic partners.Besides these intrinsic project constraints, a set of representation criteria were identified in theEmpatic’s desk research work package. The guiding logic was to represent each initiativethrough a set of attributes which will be functional to the next steps, and – more specifically –to the activities concerning the analysis of best practices and the formulation of policyrecommendations.The representation criteria identified are listed and described in the figure below.41 The European Observatory on IL Policies and ResearchAvailable: WP1/D1.1 Page 30 of 77
  • 33. Identification attributes: name of the initiative, acronym, URL, Leader institution, contacts;Country: the one of the coordinator if a multinational initiative;Leader institution Government/Parliament, Ministry, Nationaltypology: Authority/Committee, Local Authority/Committee, University, Department, Research Institution, Professional Body, International organisation, NGOKind of initiative: policy, position & recommendations, strategy, R&D project, survey, resource(s)/tool(s) for learners/teachers/users, curriculum, promotion/support/awareness/debate/cultureEU frame: COMENIUS, ERASMUS, GRUNDTVIG, LEONARDO, MINERVA, Transversal, FP3, FP4, FP7 / FP6, European Structural Funds, National, EU, International.Context or main focus: Information Literacy, Media Literacy, Digital Literacy, Information/Digital Literacy, Information/Media Literacy, Digital/Media Literacy, Science Literacy, Statistical LiteracyTarget community: Schools, HE, Adults, VET, mixed (the target community can be larger with respect to the LLL frame (COMENIUS, ERASMUS, GRUNDTVIG, LEONARDO);Start date : this field is not always available, but it is meaningful in order to understand how timely the leader institution realised the importance of IL. Fig. 16- representation format of IL best-practices.EMPATIC WP1/D1.1 Page 31 of 77
  • 34. 2.2 List of initial 87 potential initiatives for good practice selection Below are listed the 87 initiatives identified, from which 20 will be selected as good practice cases for deeper analysis in the next phases of EmpaticInitiative short Initiative full name Author / Contact(s) Country Launch End Initiative Target name or Coordinator name year year frame Sector(s) / acronym Segment(s)ALCE ALCE Animation for Fundación Tomillo - Luis RUIZ DEL ÁRBOL T Spain 1998 1999 COMENIUS Schools reading and Capto - Centro de +34.915.61.16.03 F +34 915 63 97 84 comprehension at Actividades school Pedagógicas, SpainAlfin-EEES Alfin-EEES - Skills and Universidad de María Pinto Molina Tel.: 34 958 243 933 Spain 2006 ongoing National HE competencies in Granada. Facultad Fax: 34 958 243 490 information Biblioteconomía y management for Documentación, learning to learn within Spain European Higher EducationCHILIAS Children in Libraries: Stuttgart City Library, Ingrid BUSSMANN Tel:+49-711- Germany 1996 1998 FP4 Schools improving multimedia Germany 2165710/5730 Fax:+49-711-2165701 virtual library access and information skillsCIL CIL: basic IL tutorial of CIB - Inter Library Alina Renditiso Italy Latest National users the CIB- Inter Library Centre, University Department of Education Sciences - Library ed 2009 Centre, University Libraries System of Tel. 051 20 98540 Libraries System of Alma Mater Bologna University Studiorum, Bologna University
  • 35. Initiative short Initiative full name Author / Contact(s) Country Launch End Initiative Target name or Coordinator name year year frame Sector(s) / acronym Segment(s)Compulsory Compulsory schooling Ministry of Public Ministero della Pubblica Istruzione - Viale Italy 2007 ongoing National Schoolsschooling obligation until the age Education, Italy Trastevere, 76/A 00153 Rome Italy - Tel.:obligation until of 16 years: the new 06 5849.1the age of 16 key competences -years: the new Synthesis of the Italiankey competences Minister of Public Educations speech (Original in Italian)DEDICATE Distance Education Chalmers University Nancy FJÄLLBRANT Tel:+46-31-7723754 Sweden 1997 1998 FP4 VET Information Courses of Technology, Fax:+46-31-168494 through Networks SwedenDELCIS Distance Education for Vilnius University, Lithuania 2000 2002 LEONARDO VET Librarians; Creating an Department of Information-Competent Communication, Society LithuaniaDiliweb Diliweb - The shortest The University of Le Pierre-Yves Cachard pierre- France 2000 ongoing International HE way to the Net Havre yves.cachard@univ-lehavre.frThe DOTEINE The DOTEINE research Library & Information Miguel Ángel Marzal García-Quismondo Spain 2003 ongoing National HEresearch group group Science Department - (Director) - Professor at the Library & Carlos III University Information Science Department of the of Madrid Carlos III University of Madrid - Tel.: 91- 6249219 91-8561251The DOTEINE Documentation and Library & Information Miguel Ángel Marzal García-Quismondo Spain 2003 2006 National HEproject information Science Department - (Director) - Professor at the Library & technologies for Carlos III University Information Science Department of the education: of Madrid Carlos III University of Madrid - Tel.: 91- instruments for 6249219 91-8561251 information literacy and the organization of educational resources EMPATIC WP1/D1.1 Page 33 of 77
  • 36. Initiative short Initiative full name Author / Contact(s) Country Launch End Initiative Target name or Coordinator name year year frame Sector(s) / acronym Segment(s)E-learning and E-learning and Department of Luciano Galliani (course director) Tel. Italy 2004 2005 National VETIntegrated Integrated Education Education Sciences 049/8278956Education Faculty of Education Alessandra Dal Corso (organizational Sciences, University secretary) Tel. 049/8278964 of PaduaE-meryt E-meryt - programme LUTW - the Lodz Third; Error! Poland 2009 2009 ESF Adults for social integration Age University Hyperlink reference not valid. and e-inclusion of people 50+EDUCATE End-user courses in University of Patrick KELLY Tel:+353-61-333644 Ireland 1994 1997 FP3 HE information access Limerick, Ireland Fax:+353-61-338044 through communication technologyEducational Educational Psychology Library of the Faculty Michaela Zemanek (Head) Austria 2005 2005 National HEPsychology proseminars: of Psychology - Tel.: +43(1) 4277-16830proseminars: Information Literacy Vienna Fax: +43(1) 4277-16839InformationLiteracyEEE-European EEE-European methods Zespó! Szkol nr 24; person: Ewa Poland 2004 2005 COMENIUS Schoolsmethods of e- of e-teaching and e- im. prof. S. Bryly, ul. Gutowskateaching and e- learning Ks. Janusza 45/4learning WarszawaENTITLE Europe’s New libraries MDR Partners international 2008 2009 Transversal common Together In Transversal Learning EnvironmentsEU Media Trainer EU Media Trainer Bürgermedienzentrum Germany 2003 2005 LEONARDO VET Bennohaus, GermanyEU-Trainer for EU-Trainer for ICT- and Bürgerhaus Benedikt Althoff Tel.: ++49 (0)251 609673 Germany 2008 ongoing LEONARDO VETICT- and Media Media competencies Bennohaus - Fax: ++49 (0)251 6096777 -competencies Arbeitskreis Ostviertel e.V., Germany EMPATIC WP1/D1.1 Page 34 of 77
  • 37. Initiative short Initiative full name Author / Contact(s) Country Launch End Initiative Target name or Coordinator name year year frame Sector(s) / acronym Segment(s)The Evaluation The Evaluation of the Ba"aran, M. Turkey 2005 2005 National VETof the Information Literacy ofInformation the Candidate TeachersLiteracy of the in Primary SchoolsCandidateTeachers inPrimary SchoolsFORM-IT Form - it "Take part in Austrian Institute for Marie Céline LOIBL Tel:+43-1/523610529 Austria 2006 2008 FP7 / FP6 VET research" Applied Ecology, Fax:+43-1-5235843 AustriaFrom II. National School Özel Üsküdar Turkey 2009 2009 National VETInformation Librarians Conference: American HighLiteracy to Life From Information School, #stanbulLong Learning Literacy to Life Long School LibrariansII. National Learning Group, TürkishSchool Librarians AssociationLibrariansConference:Global A Global Imperative - The New Media t 512 445-4200 f 512 445-4205; International 2004 2005 International commonImperative The Report of the 21st Consortium Century Literary SummitThe Google The Google Generation JISC - Joint United 2007 2007 National VETGeneration Information Systems Kingdom Committee; BL - British LibraryHandbook for Handbook for Cardiff University United 2005 ongoing National VETInformation Information Literacy KingdomLiteracy Teaching (HILT)Teaching (HILT) EMPATIC WP1/D1.1 Page 35 of 77
  • 38. Initiative short Initiative full name Author / Contact(s) Country Launch End Initiative Target name or Coordinator name year year frame Sector(s) / acronym Segment(s)HERON - Adults HERON - Adults The Institute of Adult Greece 2005 2008 AdultsTraining on basic Training on basic Life Long Learning documents/resource/HERON%20-%20Adults%knowledge and knowledge and skills in (IDEKE), which 20Training%20on%20Basic%skills in New New Technologies belongs to theTechnologies General Secretariat of 20Knowledge%20and%20Skills%20in% Life Long Learning 20New%20Technologies.pdf (GGDVM).HÜBO Hacettepe Üniversity Hacettepe University - Turkey 2010 National common Information Literacy Department of eng/yandaleng.asp Program Information Management - Education FacultyI Curriculum - I Curriculum - The Foundation for Greece 2002 2004 MINERVA commonThe Knowledge Knowledge and Research andand Information Information Skills Technology - Hellas -Skills needed for needed for living in the Institute of Appliedliving in the Digital Age and ComputationalDigital Age Mathematics (IACM), GreeceICT as a tool to ICT as a tool to Fullness-of-Life; tel. +48 12 294-81-35, Poland 2008 2010 GRUNDTVIG Adultsactivate seniors activate seniors Academy Association, tel./fax +48 12 294-81-36education education and their Poland, Krakow personal development - exchanging experiences, ideas and good practicesILIPG Innovative Library #stanbul Technical Turkey 2007 2009 National common Initiatives Promotion University - Library ilipg/pt03_uyeler.html Group and Documentation Branch EMPATIC WP1/D1.1 Page 36 of 77
  • 39. Initiative short Initiative full name Author / Contact(s) Country Launch End Initiative Target name or Coordinator name year year frame Sector(s) / acronym Segment(s)Improvement of Improvement of the Raziye Demiralay;; Turkey 2008 ongoing National Schoolsthe information information literacy for $irin Karadeniz for Life Life Long Learning inLong Learning in Primary SchoolPrimary SchoolInformation For Information For All UNESCO; International 2000 ongoing International commonAll Programme - Programme - IFAP mc.botte@unesco.orgIFAPInformation Information Literacy Aberdeen Business United ongoing National HELiteracy School - Robert Kingdom Gordon UniversityInformation Information Literacy Serkan KOÇ; Özgün Turkey 2005 ongoing National HELiteracy and and Active Education: Ko"anerActive A Practice ModelEducation: APractice ModelInformation Information literacy Kaunas University of Gene Duobiniene (Director) Lithuania 1999 2003 International HEliteracy courses courses at the Library Technology. The tel. 300650, tel./fax. +370-37-323590 of the Kaunas Library Vanda Dovydaityte (Deputy director) University of tel. +370-37-300651 TechnologyInformation Information Literacy University of Helsinki, Kaisa Sinikara - Director of Library and Finland 2004 2006 National HELiteracy Curriculum Project Finland Information Services Development,Curriculum 2004-2006 University of Helsinki - P.O. Box 33 - FI-Project 2004- 000142006Information Information Literacy- University of Greece 1999 ongoing National HELiteracy- Educational Seminars Macedonia -Library & 8Educational Information CenterSeminars EMPATIC WP1/D1.1 Page 37 of 77
  • 40. Initiative short Initiative full name Author / Contact(s) Country Launch End Initiative Target name or Coordinator name year year frame Sector(s) / acronym Segment(s)Information Information Literacy NUI Galway, Trinity Isolde Harpur, Trinity College Library Ireland ongoing National HELiteracy module module College Dublin and Dublin University College CorkInformation Information Literacy for Evgenidis Foundation- Greece National VETLiteracy for Teachers LibraryTeachersInformation Information literacy Staffordshire United ongoing National HELiteracy Project project University KingdomInformation Information literacy Glasgow Caledonian; United 2004 2008 National Schoolsliteracy skills skills - the link between University (GCU) Kingdom secondary and tertiary educationInformatyka+ Informatyka+: the Wy%sza Szko!a Projects office – Wy%sza Szko!a Poland 2008 2012 National Schools interregional Informatyki (The Informatyki, Lewartowskiego St. / 17 0- programme for the Academy of 169 Warsaw / Poland development of the Informatics) in secondary school Warsaw students qualifications in Information Communication TechnologyISIC 2008 Information Seeking in Vilnius University. Dr. Erika Jani&nien (contact person) Lithuania 2008 2008 International HE Context (ISIC) 2008 Faculty of tel. +370 5 2366119 Communication. Department of Information and CommunicationLearning by Learning by doing: ICT Szkola Podstawowa, person: Poland 2005 2006 COMENIUS Schoolsdoing: ICT since since early years Nr 31, Aleja Miroslaw Pyplaczearly years Zwyci(stwa, Dabrowa Gornicza-Zabkowice EMPATIC WP1/D1.1 Page 38 of 77
  • 41. Initiative short Initiative full name Author / Contact(s) Country Launch End Initiative Target name or Coordinator name year year frame Sector(s) / acronym Segment(s)Learning Objects Learning Objects Web Aalborg University Niels Jørgen Blaabjerg, Tel.: 9635 7304 Denmark 2006 ongoing National HEWeb Library - Aalborg njb@aub.aau.dkLibrary - Library - community Lithuanian Regional Antanas Alvikas (Director) Lithuania 2003 2004 EU VETcommunity public information Research Institute, Drs. Jurga Bu)ait (Project manager)public centre Kaunas Edita Naujokaityt (Project manager)informationcentreMA in MA in Information University of Sheffield United 2010 ongoing National HEInformation Literacy KingdomLiteracyMedienpass (Media portfolio: Technische Germany 2006 ongoing LEONARDO VET blended learning Universität Dresden, course on media Lehrzentrum literacy for language Sprachen und teachers) Kulturen, GermanyMile Mile - Model for Aalborg University Denmark 1999 2001 National HE information literacy Library, Denmark educationThe multimedia Project: the multimedia Federal Ministry for Prof. Mag. Werner Schöggl (Project co- Austria ongoing National Schoolsschool library school library Education, the Arts ordination) and Culture (BMUKK) Service centre for school libraries - AHS Vienna Vienna Tel. 43-1/ 523 62 22 - 93278 Fax 43-1/523 62 22 99 93 210Net Net Communication for Faculty of Education Prof. Francesco Susi (Dean) Italy 2006 National HECommunication Learning Sciences Tel.: 06 49229323for Learning Course for students of "Roma Tre" Fax: 06 4463722 Pedagogical Sciences University, Rome (Masters Degree) EMPATIC WP1/D1.1 Page 39 of 77
  • 42. Initiative short Initiative full name Author / Contact(s) Country Launch End Initiative Target name or Coordinator name year year frame Sector(s) / acronym Segment(s)"ORION" Reference Services, Library of A.T.E.I. of Greece ongoing National VETInformation "ORION" Information ThessalonikiLiteracy Tutorial Literacy TutorialReferenceServices,Project IL I / Information Literacy The Library of the Oliver Kohl-Frey - Tel.:++49 - (0)7531 - Germany 2003 2005 National HEProjekt IK I Project I (IL I) / University of 88 - 2835 - Fax: ++49 - (0)7531 - 88 - Projekt Konstanz, Germany 3082 Informationskompetenz IProject Joint Project on The Library of the Bernd Schmid-Ruhe Tel: Germany 2005 2007 National HEInformation Comparative Research University of ++49/(0)7531/88-2804 - Fax:Literacy II in Information Literacy Konstanz, Germany ++49/(0)7531/88-3082 for advanced students and staff membersPUZZLE Increasing and Chambre de - Tel.: 33 1 55 65 France 2001 2004 GRUNDTVIG VET supporting the Commerce et 67 90 - Fax: 33 1 55 65 66 94 individual demand for dIndustrie de Paris education in the Information SocietyRecommendation Recommendation of European Parliament Tel.: (32-2) 281 61 11 - Fax: (32-2) 281 European 2006 EU Schoolsof the European the European & Council of the 69 34 UnionParliament and Parliament and of the European Union,of the Council of Council of 18 European Union18 December December 2006 on key2006 on key competences forcompetences for lifelong learninglifelong learning EMPATIC WP1/D1.1 Page 40 of 77
  • 43. Initiative short Initiative full name Author / Contact(s) Country Launch End Initiative Target name or Coordinator name year year frame Sector(s) / acronym Segment(s)Recommendation Recommendation for University of Helsinki, Anne Lehto tel (09) 191 23958 Finland 2004 National HEfor universities universities for Finlandfor including including informationinformation literacy competency inliteracy the new degreecompetency in structuresthe new degreestructuresRegional Public Regional Public Library Hacettepe University i Turkey 2002 ongoing National VETLibrary Seminars Seminars Prof. Dr. Bülent YılmazRetrieving and Accéder à linformation Institut Universitaire Tel. France 2000 2003 COMENIUS VETaccessing scientifique et de Formation des + Fax: +33 5 56 12 67 99scientific and technique (=Retrieving Maitres dAquitainetechnical and accessing scientific "Academie deinformation and technical Bordeaux" information)SAPRISTI! SAPRISTI! – Access Doc’Insa Lyon Monique Joly France 1996 ongoing National HE paths and tracks to search for scientific and technical information on the InternetSchool- School-documentalist Department of Prof. Donatella Lombello Italy 2005 2006 National VETdocumentalist teacher training (AY Education Sciences (course director)teacher training 2005-2006): distance Faculty of Education course Sciences, University of PaduaThe School on The School on the Net Faculty of Education Ornella Martini Italy 2005 ongoing National VETthe Net Sciences Tel.: 06 49229247 "Roma Tre" Fax: 06 491627 University, Rome EMPATIC WP1/D1.1 Page 41 of 77
  • 44. Initiative short Initiative full name Author / Contact(s) Country Launch End Initiative Target name or Coordinator name year year frame Sector(s) / acronym Segment(s)Searching for Searching for and “E. Fermi” Technical Prof. Roberto Cadonici (coordinator) Italy 2000 ongoing National Schoolsand processing processing information High School for Tel. 39-573-452638information - A - A high school project Surveyors - Pistoiahigh schoolprojectSEEKS - Adult SEEKS - Adult MANCHESTER - Telephone +00 44 United 2001 2003 MINERVA VETInformation Information Seeking METROPOLITAN 161 275 7255 - Fax +00 44 161 200 3505 KingdomSeeking Strategies in the UNIVERSITY, UKStrategies in the Information – get to Fundacja Dzieci, Poland 2005 --- National Schools know the safe side of Niczyje (Nobodys the internet Children Foundation)SLAM SLAM - School Libraries PEDAGOGISK SENTER Per FAGERLAND tel.: +47 52811445 fax: Norway 1999 2000 MINERVA VET as Multimedia Centres - KARMØY KOMMUNE +47 52855327 - - SKOLE- OG KULTURETATEN, NorwayStatistical International Statistical International International 1994 ongoing International commonLiteracy Literacy Project Statistical InstituteA Study on A Study on Equipping Serap Kurbano*lu; Turkey 2001 2002 National SchoolsEquipping Students with Buket Akkoyunlu with Information LiteracyInformation SkillsLiteracy SkillsStudy and Study and information University of Ioannina Greece National HEinformation skills skills - Central LibrarySWIM SWIM - Streaming Aalborg University Maj Rosenstand Denmark 2001 2003 National HE Webbased Information Library - Aalborg Tel.: 9635 9349 Modules Niels Jørgen Blåbjerg Tel.: 9635 7304 EMPATIC WP1/D1.1 Page 42 of 77
  • 45. Initiative short Initiative full name Author / Contact(s) Country Launch End Initiative Target name or Coordinator name year year frame Sector(s) / acronym Segment(s)SWIM tutorial SWIM - information Aalborg University Maj Rosenstand Denmark 2001 2003 National HE search strategy Library - Aalborg Tel.: 9635 9349 Niels Jørgen Blåbjerg Tel.: 9635 7304Szkolenia - to si( Database of training PARP - the Polish;; Poland 2010 2011 ESF VETop!aca offers Agency for Enterprise phone +48 22 432 80 80, +48 22 432 71 Development 25Television News Television News on KULTURRING IN Armin HOTTMANN Email Germany 1999 2002 COMENIUS Schoolson Europe - Europe - Project on BERLIN E.V. - T +49.30.513.97.49 FProject on media media education for Kulturring Institute, +49 30 513 97 55education for compulsory schools in Germanycompulsory Europeschools inEuropeUNESCO Information and Media UNESCO International ongoing International commonInformation and LiteracyMedia LiteracyUNESCO The 2003 International UNESCO International 2003 2003 International commonInternational Conference ofConference Information LiteracyInformation Experts - PragueLiteracyUNESCO The 2005 High-Level UNESCO, NFIL, IFLA International 2005 2005 International commonInternational InternationalColloquium Colloquium onInformation Information LiteracyLiteracy and and Lifelong LearningLifelong Learning EMPATIC WP1/D1.1 Page 43 of 77
  • 46. Initiative short Initiative full name Author / Contact(s) Country Launch End Initiative Target name or Coordinator name year year frame Sector(s) / acronym Segment(s)UNESCO Teacher-Training UNESCO International 2008 ongoing International VETTeacher-Training Curricula for Media andCurricula for Information LiteracyMedia andInformationLiteracyUNESCO Training of Information UNESCO International 2002 2009 International VETTraining of ProfessionalsInformationProfessionalsUNESCO Training-the-Trainers in UNESCO International 2007 2009 International VETTraining-the- Information LiteracyTrainers inInformationLiteracyUNESCO Training of Media UNESCO International 2002 ongoing International VETTraining of Media ProfessionalsProfessionalsUniversity of Users Training Library and Greece ongoing National HECrete: Users Information Center ofTraining the Technical University of CreteUniversity of Training & Information Library & Information Greece ongoing National VETThessaly: Support Center - University ofTraining & ThessalyInformationSupportUsing the Using the Internet for Department of Ari Haasio Finland ongoing National commonInternet for Non- Non-work Information Information Studieswork Information Seeking Tampere UniversitySeeking EMPATIC WP1/D1.1 Page 44 of 77
  • 47. Initiative short Initiative full name Author / Contact(s) Country Launch End Initiative Target name or Coordinator name year year frame Sector(s) / acronym Segment(s)Value of data The value of data: to ISTAT Italy 2002 ongoing National Schools know more, to decide betterVERITY Virtual and Electronic University of Jo AITKINS Tel:+44-191-5153915 United 1998 2000 FP4 Schools Resources for Sunderland, UK Fax:+44-191-5152904 Kingdom Information skills TrainingWeb-Seal Web Searching, University of Tampere Eero Sormunen tel. +358-03-3551 6972 Finland 2006 2009 National HE Information Literacy - Department of (office) tel. +358-50-362 8781 (mobile) and Learning (Web- Information Studies, SeaL) Finlandwkluczamy.PL wkluczamy.PL ("self e- Association "Silesian; tel. +48 32 Poland 2009 ongoing Regional Adults inclusion"), the Gallery of Ideas" 276 42 20; tel. gsm +48 604 476 069; initiative to "upgrade" 50+ Silesians in the information societyThe working The working group Federal Ministry for Werner Schöggl (co-ordinator) Austria National Schoolsgroup "The "The multimedia school Education, the Arts Service centre for school libraries - AHSmultimedia library" and Culture (BMUKK) Viennaschool library" Vienna Tel. 43-1/ 523 62 22 - 93278 FAX 43-1/523 62 22 99 93 210 EMPATIC WP1/D1.1 Page 45 of 77
  • 48. 2.3 Data clustering and analysisA first analysis based on those single attributes give rises to the following results (see graphs 1to 8). ESF 2 EU 2 FP7 / FP6 1 FP4 3 FP3 1 MINERVA 3 LEONARDO 4 GRUNDTVIG 2 COMENIUS 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Graph. 1 - IL initiatives by EU funding ProgrammeEMPATIC WP1/D1.1 Page 46 of 77
  • 49. Graph. 2 - IL initiatives by institutionEMPATIC WP1/D1.1 Page 47 of 77
  • 50. Graph. 3- IL initiatives by CountryEMPATIC WP1/D1.1 Page 48 of 77
  • 51. Graph. 4 - IL initiatives by initiative-typeLow number of curriculum project while this area needs to be addressed better since there areno common views; training in the situation of lack of curricula might not be efficient Graph. 5 - IL initiatives by literacy areaThe granularity of literacies still needs to be understood better; it seems a bit worrying thatthe area is fragmented and not approached in a holistic wayEMPATIC WP1/D1.1 Page 49 of 77
  • 52. Graph. 6 - IL initiatives by year of launch Graph. 7 - IL initiatives by Country and year of launchEMPATIC WP1/D1.1 Page 50 of 77
  • 53. Graph. 8 - IL initiatives by target community2.4 IL Institutional Bodies and NetworksSpecific mention is due to Institutions and on European network focussed on IL.National Forum on Information Literacy (United States)http://infolit.orgEstablished in 1989 under the auspices of the American Library Association’s (ALA) PresidentialCommittee on Information Literacy, the National Forum on Information Literacy’s mission wasto promote information literacy. After operating as a volunteer organization for the last 20years, the National Forum on Information incorporated as a 501c3 non-profit organization,based in Massachusetts, in 2009. Engaging collaborative partnerships with community basedorganizations servicing the diverse needs of middle and low income populations in the U.S. isat the heart of how we view our mission moving forward (source: the Institutional website).Australian and New Zealand Institute for Information Literacy (ANZIIL) was established in 2000 with the mission to support organisations, institutions andindividuals in the promotion of information literacy and, in particular, the embedding ofinformation literacy within the total educational process. The ways in which ANZIIL can achievethis mission is by the identification, facilitation, fostering and support of best practice ininformation literacy education through professional development, promotion, marketing andadvocacy, and research.ANZIILs activities and initiatives will primarily target vocational and higher education. It isintended that the Institute will collaborate with a range of national and internationalorganisations, forums and groups to complement their existing information literacy aims,objectives and initiatives. In particular, ANZIIL will work closely with CAUL, the Council of NewEMPATIC WP1/D1.1 Page 51 of 77
  • 54. Zealand University Librarians (CONZUL), Australian Library and Information Association(ALIA), NWGTLS (National Working Group for TAFE Library Services) and Library andInformation Association of New Zealand Aotearoa (LIANZA) (source: the Institutional website).European Network on Information Literacy (EnIL) (European network on Information Literacy) is a research initiative of the Institute forStudies on Scientific Research and Documentation (Isrds), within the Italian National ResearchCouncil, started in 2001. The idea of opening a European discourse on Information Literacystems from the evident absence of a "European voice" in the IL debate, where USA initiativesappear to dominate.Among the EnIL aims are the establishment of an aggregation and discussion place amongEuropean IL experts (the EnIL network); the definition within the network on a commonresearch agenda; the development of a system for the assessment and certification ofinformation skills of the Higher Education students in Europe; the experimentation of aEuropean Information Driving License (EiDL), analogous to the European Computer DrivingLicense (EcDL)through a number of EiDL pilot projects in different countries.The philosophy underlying the EnIL programme is based on common strategies, exchange ofresults, and production of comparable data.Common, sharable and comparable results, in fact, will give a Europe-wide methodologicalvalue to all the EnIL actions. Furthermore, operating as a network, EnIL will empower thepromotion of its goals (source: the Institutional website).International Alliance for Information Literacy (IAIL) a recommendation from the Prague Conference of Information Literacy Experts heldSeptember 20-23, 2003, the following organizations are committing to creating anInternational Alliance for Information Literacy. The evolving purpose for the Alliance is tofacilitate the sharing of information and expertise on information literacy across regions andnations of the world. The ultimate goal of the Alliance is to facilitate people’s participatingeffectively in the Information Society, as part of the basic human right of life long learning.The Alliance will consist of organizations that act as nodes around the world. Memberorganizations will generally be regional or national organizations that are broadly based,including representation from the economic development, education, health, human services,librarianship, public policy, and information and communications technology sectors.Founding Members of IAIL:Australian and New Zealand Institute for Information Literacy (ANZIIL)European Network on Information Literacy(Europe)National Forum on Information Literacy (United States)NORDINFOlit (Scandinavia)SCONUL Advisory Committee on Information Literacy (United Kingdom)EMPATIC WP1/D1.1 Page 52 of 77
  • 55. SECTION3: THE EMPATIC FRAMEWORK OF ANALYSIS3.1 Three perspectives of analysisThe universe of discourse on Information Literacy (IL) can be stratified into differentlayers. The proposed stratification can be of use both for a theoretical systematisation ofthe issue and for identifying a sequence of measures aimed at an effective propagation ofa Culture of Information.The proposal presents a mathematical-like approach, which starts proposing thedefinitions of some basic concepts and then proceeds with 10 propositions or theses, eachsupported by a number of argumentations.The proposed theses are generated by the following perspectives of analysis of theInformation Literacy phenomenon, and accordingly grouped: a) DISCIPLINARY PERSPECTIVE: analysis of Information Literacy as Culture of information and as a form of study of information; b) SOCIAL/POLITICAL PERSPECTIVE: analysis of Information Literacy as an educational policy goal; c) COGNITIVE PERSPECTIVE: analysis of Information Literacy as a form of personal competence.As a consequence of the proposed theses, the following foci of the Information Literacydiscourse are identified: • Information Literacy rationale (theses 1,2,3); • Policy awareness (theses 4,5,6); • Planning and implementation (theses 7,8,9); • Individual development (thesis 10).Against this background, it can be explored how the distinction between differentstratifications – by trying to give an order to the reasoning about the issues concerningliteracy in information – can facilitate the identification of a set of variables to be takeninto account in defining a coherent strategy towards making Information Literacylegitimate within the European Higher Education context.Nearly twenty years after the historical ALA report42, the configuration of discourse about theIL phenomenon appears focused around the following key issues: the promoter community ofthe IL problem is the librarian one; in the Library and Information Science (LIS) field a largeconsent about IL importance do exists, but a universally accepted definition of the concept isstill lacking; outside the LIS community a very scarce awareness of the question and of thedistinction between the concepts of “Information” and “Informatics” persists and prevails; agreat number of tools of self-teaching has been developed, in the form of tutorials, mostly byinitiative of libraries; a great amount of specialised literature about IL is available, however it’s42 ALA Presidential Committee on IL, Final Report on IL, 1989. Available: WP1/D1.1 Page 53 of 77
  • 56. needed an agreement about concrete actions, agents and ways for an effective embodiment ofthe IL objective. The IL territory has been ironically defined as "the IL land of confusion"43.In view of the above, we strongly believe that coherent pragmatic decisions can derive fromcoherent theoretical premises. Therefore, with such intent, we want to propose here severaltheses, which, supported by adequate argumentations, could be useful in differentiatingamong discussion levels that, despite their differences, in the literature appears to beundifferentiated.In fact, our conviction is that the lack of a separation between different “stratifications” ofreasoning represents one of the main causes of confusion about IL discourse and,consequently, that this obscures the way towards concrete and coordinated policy measures.“Information Literacy” is a complex phenomenon, which can be analysed from severalperspectives; here we have chosen to analyse it from the following points of view (see fig.17):1. disciplinary, as a form of study of information (Culture of Information);2. social/educational, as a form of literacy (Information Literacy);3. cognitive, as a form of individual competency (information skills or i-skills). Culture of Information Information Information skills literacy IL universe of discourse Socio-political Cognitive perspective perspective Disciplinary perspective Fig. 17 - Perspectives of analysis of the Information Literacy discourseReasoning about IL definitions43 WP1/D1.1 Page 54 of 77
  • 57. The complexity of the IL concept exceeds the literal meaning of the expression, nevertheless,the practice of going back to the literal meaning of the term "literacy" can be of use. Asresulting from the etymological and philological analysis of the English term “literacy”, thisrefers to a status, a condition, and in English there is not a verb analogous to the Italian“alfabetizzare”, with a similar meaning of “making people to become literate”44. For thepurposes of this paper it’s fundamental to distinguish two meanings of the term literacy: thestatus (to be literate) and the process (to make someone becoming literate).DEFINITION. Information Literacy (as process): educational process, of political derivation,that aims at spreading in a population a minimum level of competencies for the retrieval,evaluation and exploitation of information from a variety of sources.DEFINITION. Information Literacy (as status): social objective of educational policy; state orcondition, result of a process; to have acquired the competence to retrieve, evaluate and useinformation from a variety of sources.The distinction between the process and its result is essential for the purposes of this paper. Infact, the reasoning on the result articulates around variables like: • expected competency level; • aims of learning; • assessment procedures;while reasoning about the process articulates around other variables, like: • planning of actions, • target communities; • curriculum design; • course configuration; • teaching methods.The theses described in the following paragraphs are strictly connected with the definitionshere provided: some of them represent a justification of the proposed definitions, particularlyfor terms in italic, while others are consequences of them. Other theses provide the rationaleof our reasoning and thus are described as first in the next section.3.1.1 Information Literacy as a discipline of studyThesis 1: The culture of information falls within the disciplinary field of documentation-information scienceFirstly, we want to place in a definite disciplinary field the knowledge transferred during theprocess of IL. This perspective of analysis regards IL as a form of study of information, as a branchof knowledge and therefore as a subject of study, which we will call “Culture of Information”.We refer to the seminal work of Fritz Machlup and Una Mansfield8 for a deepening and acomparison between nine disciplinary fields, whose study object, principle or secondary, isinformation:44 In fact, the English verb “to alphabetize” means “to put in alphabetical order”.EMPATIC WP1/D1.1 Page 55 of 77
  • 58. “cognitive sciences, computer and information science, artificial intelligence, linguistics, library and information sciences, cybernetics, information theory, mathematical system theory and general system theory”.45In the same work the authors explain the debate about the suitability of the connotation as“science” for some disciplines, an issue outside the scope of this paper.Nevertheless, it is worth to underline the existence of cultural differences in the study of information,even in the limits of the LIS (Library and Information Sciences) field.The common theoretical matrix of the various documentary disciplines – Archival Science,Library Science, Bibliography, Documentation or Information Science46 – is undeniable.However, those elements, which at a theoretical level represent a partial difference, in thepurposes of the single disciplines constitute a relevant distinction.By accepting such significant common matrix, the Culture of Information inherits methodologiesand tools from Bibliography, Library Science, Documentation, Scientific Research Methodologiesand Computer Science.47 However, from Documentation three fundamental elements areadditionally and specifically inherited: - the ability of mapping heterogeneous sources, - a critical sense and evaluation ability, - and – most important – the typology of results.In fact, by limiting the comparison between Documentation and Library Science in otherpapers we have underlined that: “In comparison with the result of the reference service, which points out and refers to information sources, the result of the documentation service is a synthetic processing of various sources; it is the answer and not just a medium to achieve it.”48As to the comparison between Library Instruction and Information Literacy, the first one is limited tosources and services provided by the library and it is addressed to library users, while thesecond one relates to every form of explicit, codified and recorded information, and it isaddressed to everyone who needs information for study or practical purposes.As a disciplinary field, IL can therefore be considered as a branch of the Information Science,as this one affects much more IL aims.The relation between Culture of Information and Information Science or Documentation can be betterdescribed through an analogy with the relation between Computer Literacy and ComputerScience; reasoning about this analogy on the one hand is useful to put an accent on thedistinction between the concepts of Information Literacy and Computer Literacy, on the otherhand to better understand the disciplinary placement of IL.The disciplinary matrix of Computer Literacy is Computer Science, as well as that one of IL isInformation Science.45 MACHLUP, F. , MANSFIELD, U. (1983) The study of information. Interdisciplinary messages, Wiley & Sons.46 Hereafter the terms Documentation and Information Science will refer to the same discipline, since the former – inuse until 1969 - is the older name of the latter.47 the list is merely in alphabetical order, without any attribution of relevance as to the influence on IL of the various disciplines.48 BASILI, Carla. L’assetto disciplinare della Documentazione. Alcune riflessioni, "AIDA Informazioni", 18(2000), n.3/4, p.30-35EMPATIC WP1/D1.1 Page 56 of 77
  • 59. Therefore we could point out a derivation relation between matrices and branches as follows: branch X : matrix X = branch Y : matrix Ywhich in the analysed case appears as follows: Information Literacy : Information Science = Computer Literacy : Computer ScienceA first consequence of this relation is that in both couples the matrix is a discipline, whichforms the professionals of that subject (respectively documentalist and the so calledcomputer specialists), while the branch is a discipline, which forms the user, respectively ofinformation and of computers. This can be synthetically represented as: Information Science : Information Professional = Computer Science : Computer Professional Information Literacy : Information User = Computer Literacy : Computer UserA second consequence relates to the inheritance of basic characteristics from the matrix: thebranch inherits the main characteristics of the matrix from which it derives. Should we placethe different concepts in a thesaurus, the relation between terms could be represented asfollows: Information Science Computer Science NT Information Literacy NT Computer LiteracyAnd vice versa: Information Literacy Computer Literacy BT Information Science BT Computer ScienceTherefore - we want to stress again - Culture of Information is aimed at educating theinformation user, and it is distinguished from the education of the information professional.Thesis 2: The Culture of information is a knowledge independent from every applicationdomainThe definition of “discipline” provided by Machlup and Mansfield, that we entirely report: “Disciplines (sciences, academic areas of research and teaching) are orderly arrangements (metaphorically called bodies) of coherent thoughts, formulated as propositions, about things (sense-objects or thought-objects) deemed worthy of being known (i.e., being believed with some degree of confidence) and being passed on. (Machlup-Mansfield, p.3)”is enough clear and simple for the scope of our reasoning.In addition, most scientific disciplines present a theoretical and an applicative component.This is affirmed by Borko in relation to Documentation, at the moment of the epochal transitionfrom “Documentation” to “Information Science” in 196849.49 This change of denomination is considered as officially ratified in 1969 with the new denomination of the AmericanDocumentation Institute, which became American Society for Information Science.EMPATIC WP1/D1.1 Page 57 of 77
  • 60. “Information Science [ ... ] is concerned with that body of knowledge relating to the origination, collection, organisation, storage, retrieval, interpretation, transmission, transformation, and utilisation of information. It has both a pure science component, which enquires into the subject without regard to its application, and an applied science component, which develops services and products. (Borko,196850)”Ancient philosophers already made a distinction between !"#$%&µ& (epistéme) – science orscientific cognition - and ()*& (téchne) – art, skill or ability, instrumental, context andpractical knowledge.Aristotle’s position, in particular, has been understood by modern science as basis of thedistinction between theory (possession of knowledge) and practice (the field of craft,profession)51.Because of its derivation from Documentation (compare Thesis 1), the Culture of Informationinherits the same components.The theoretical component is based on a set of general principles, logical constructions andstandardised methodologies, inheritance of the Information Science52, which represent thetheoretical basis for structuring, representing and organising information. Objects of study,just citing some of them, are: architecture of a system for information retrieval, structure ofan apparatus for indexing, methodologies of evaluation of sources, criteria for analysis ofsources, techniques for production of dossiers. Besides these we find general principles andcontext knowledge such as: concept of bibliographic control, processing of the documentarychain, information life cycle, and ethical use of information. Such theoretical foundation iscompletely independent from its applicative context, which permits to place the Culture ofInformation among the other disciplines of study. The theoretical component, in other words,constitutes the property of transversality of the Culture of Information with respect tosubject (or vertical) disciplines like Astrophysics, Geology, Medicine, and so on (see Thesis 3below).On the other hand, only the applicative component of the Culture of Information can – butnot necessarily must – be intended as functional for a specific domain or field of study. Itcomprises the study of services and information resources of interest for a specific subjectfield.The applied component can be integrated into various vertical disciplines (compare Thesis 3below), through the indication of specific sources and description of particular referencesystems, also with support of the library staff.Another important distinction is between the concepts of education and training. In previouspapers we already underlined the need of establishing a Culture of Information53, that meansto infuse values as to the importance of information and its ethical use, while training is mainlyconcerned with instructions for using tools and information resources.The specialised literature distinguishes different kinds of knowledge:50 BORKO, Harold (1968) Information science: What is it? Journal of the American Society for Information Science,19, 3-5.51 PARRY, Richard, "Episteme and Techne", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2003 Edition), EdwardN. Zalta (ed.), Available: This set of general principles constitute the theoretical foundation of Information Science as a scientific discipline53 BASILI, C. (2000), “Information literacy”: un concetto solo statunitense? (Information literacy: a issue only in theUSA?). “AIDAinformazioni”, 19 (2001), n. 2EMPATIC WP1/D1.1 Page 58 of 77
  • 61. • know-why: is the knowledge of general principles and laws, which govern nature, human mind and society; • Know-what: is the knowledge of facts (contiguous, as regards its meaning, to that which is commonly defined “information”) • Know-how: refers to the skill and competence in doing something.With a view to such distinction and considering the large proliferation of courses and ILtutorials, most of which is designed for auto-instruction, we want to stress that IL is mainly"knowledge", not only "ability". This view is supported by Shapiro’s and Hughes’s concept, whoinclude IL among the liberal arts, as already mentioned (see § 1.2.1 in Section 1 of this report)"Information and computer literacy, in the conventional sense, are functionally valuabletechnical skills. But information literacy should in fact be conceived more broadly as a newliberal art that extends from knowing how to use computers and access information to criticalreflection on the nature of information itself, its technical infrastructure, and its social, culturaland even philosophical context and impact - as essential to the mental framework of theeducated information-age citizen as the trivium of basic liberal arts (grammar, logic andrhetoric) was to the educated person in medieval society." 54Thesis 3: The Culture of information is a kind of transversal knowledgeIn the specialised literature often recurs the distinction between subject disciplines and cross-curricular disciplines, where the former– which we call here “vertical” – are focused to aparticular field of study and research, while the latter – which we call “horizontal” – havemethodological character, independent from a specific scientific sector.The Culture of information, as Informatics and Second Language, is transversal to everyintellectual activity, and thus it can be introduced in any course of study. In fact, it can becounted among the methodologies of scientific research and it has been defined as the basisfor “learning how to learn”.Furthermore, the competencies acquired (information skills) are defined in theEuropean Education Thesaurus as included in the Basic Education17, as follows:54 SHAPIRO, Jeremy J. and HUGHES, Shelley K. (1996) Information Literacy as a Liberal Art: Enlightenmentproposals for a new curriculum. «Educom review». 31 (2), 31-35. Available: WP1/D1.1 Page 59 of 77
  • 62. basic education MT (10) content of education da: grunduddannelse de: Grundbildung el : +,-./0 1/2,.314-1 es: educación básica fi : perusopetus fr : éducation de base it : educazione di base nl : fundamenteel onderwijs pt : Educação de base sv: grundutbildning SN instruction in subjects of elementary education, social skills and community responsibilities UF fundamental education NT1 computer literacy NT1 information skills RT basic training RT content of education RT minimum competenciesThesis 4: The Culture of information is distinct from the Informatics cultureIn 1983 F.W. Horton pointed out the distinction between Information Literacy and ComputerLiteracy – affirming that: “Computer literacy has to do with increasing our understanding of what the machine can and cannot do. There are two major components of computer literacy: hardware and software. … Information literacy, then, as opposed to computer literacy, means rising the level of awareness of individuals and enterprises to the knowledge explosion, and how machine-aided handling systems can help identify, access and obtain data, documents and literature needed for problem- solving and decision-making. [Horton, 1983]55”As a matter of facts, today all the secondary information and an increasing part of the primaryis available in electronic format. Correspondently, a great variety of search software exists andtherefore its functionality as computer application has to be understood and studied.55 HORTON, Forrest Woody Jr. (1983), Information literacy vs. computer literacy. “Bulletin of the American Societyfor Information Science”, Vol. 9, No. 4, April 1983EMPATIC WP1/D1.1 Page 60 of 77
  • 63. Nevertheless, the large part of the study should concern the general logic of the internaldesign of this class of packages, and its strong relation with the underlying informationarchitecture.3.1.2 Information Literacy as social objectiveThesis 5: Information Literacy is a requisite of the Information SocietyThe reasons supporting this thesis can be found in the introduction of nearby all articlesdealing with the issue of Information Literacy, therefore we will just cite the most recurringslogans related to well-known problems and needs of the current Information Society: • information overload; • information smog; • learn how to learn; • active citizenship; • information divide.The only remark we want to underline is a kind of graduality in the different purposes ofInformation Literacy. In the literature it seems to exist a large consent about the close relationbetween Information Literacy and processes like problem-solving and decision-making.However, these purposes can be conceived as one end of a spectrum, where the opposite endis the enlargement of individual knowledge.With Fig.18 we try to provide a graphic representation of this concept. Activity Goal Context Decision-making Decision Lifelong learning problem-solving Investigation - Scientific research/ Dossier/report interpretation vocational education Enlargement of individual Study Formal Education knowledge Fig. 18 - Aims and contexts of Information Literacy exploitationEMPATIC WP1/D1.1 Page 61 of 77
  • 64. Thesis 6: Information Literacy is an objective of educational policyIn previous paragraphs we defined information literacy as an educational policy goal. In thefollowing ones we will give a number of argumentations supporting this thesis. Firstly, theoriginal meaning of term “literacy” – i. e. “to be able to read and write” – historicallyoriginates as political objective aiming at solving the question of illiteracy.Furthermore, Zurkowsky56 himself, to whom – as already remembered - the coin of theexpression “information literate” has been attributed, characterizes it as an intervention ofpolitical matrix. This cannot be recognized in the sentence intensively cited in the literatureas follows: “People trained in the application of information resources to their work can be called information literates. They have learned techniques and skills for using the wide range of information tools as well as primary sources in molding information solutions to their problems [Zurkowski, 1974]“.but rather in the abstract of his paper found in the Eric database57: “The relations of the National Program for Library and Information Services to information literacy and the information industry are discussed. Private sector information resources are identified in several categories. The traditional relations of libraries and with the information industry are described, and examples are given of situations where traditional roles of libraries and private sector information activities are in transition. It is suggested that the top priority of the National Commission on Libraries and Information Science should be directed toward establishing a major national program to achieve universal information literacy by 1984. (PF)”In fact, in the abstract – as we can see – is clearly mentioned Zurkowsky’s hope that anational program would be started, aiming at achieving universal information literacy within adecade.Thesis 7: Information Literacy implies a massive operationThe definition of information literacy proposed in section 2. implies the concept of “targetpopulation” of the Information Literacy process.As we understood this expression and according to the character of Zurkowsky’s paper, targetpopulation is every citizen who is in condition of information illiteracy.However, it is necessary to consider those cases where the educational objective is pursued fora limited universe in comparison with that of a whole nation: a region, a province, amunicipality, a university, a school. The case of studying population of universities is ofparticular interest to our analysis.The IL process, anyway, implies the idea of a mass-operation, according to its policyconnotation (see theses 6). This aspect can be easily recognised even in the denomination ofinternational initiatives like the UNESCO “Information for all Programme”.Thesis 8: Information Literacy refers to a minimum amount of competenciesThe concept of literacy has been extended from its original meaning, i. e. “ability to read andwrite”, to that of competencies of general character, dispensed to individuals which are56 ZURKOWSKI, Paul (1974), The information service environment: Relationships and priorities. Washington, DC :National Commission on Libraries and Information Science. Government Printing Office, 1974 (Report ED 100391).57 ED100391: The Information Service Environment: Relationships and Priorities. Related Paper No. 5.EMPATIC WP1/D1.1 Page 62 of 77
  • 65. completely or nearly completely incompetent in that matter58. This is opposite, we underlinethis concept, to the professional training of information specialists (see Thesis 1).We can consider three levels of competence: Basic Advanced SpecialisedIn fact, besides the literal meaning of the term “literacy” - which calls for an educationalstrategy informed to a “minimum common denominator” - it could be useful to consider alsoboth advanced and specialised levels of competence, particularly in the Higher Educationcontext.Our vision of the three levels of IL competency is outlined below.Basic IL competencies: • Fundamental concepts: value of information, a general picture of the information universe • Basic theoretical level: information mapping, Information Retrieval basics, minimum set of evaluation criteriaAdvanced IL competencies: • Basic IL competencies • Analysis of information sources • The logic of the Information Retrieval process • Semantic representation of documents (basic concepts) • Scientific writingSpecialised IL competencies: • Advanced IL competencies • Disciplinary information mapping • Specific search tools • Disciplinary writingThe distinction among different levels of IL competency is relevant for the discussion abouttwo main points: the configuration of IL relative to the curriculum and the attribution of thecharge of teaching.Thesis 9: Information Literacy requires changes in the education systemTo date, the teaching dimension of IL has been developed mostly by autonomous initiative oflibraries worldwide, in the common format of tutorials and self-instruction courses (seePRIMO)59.Nevertheless, IL – as a requisite of the Information Society (see thesis 5) – cannot bedeveloped in episodic and fragmented forms, but rather through coherent policy measuresconcerning modifications in the education system.58 We intend, for example, the processes of diffuse Second language and Computer Literacies launched in the primaryschool in the last decades.59 WP1/D1.1 Page 63 of 77
  • 66. This topic represents a key issue for an effective implementation of the IL process, as itcomprises a conversion of policy goals into operational terms.Implementing such transformation means to identify (and agree upon) one of the alternativepaths of modification of the education system.The general concept of Education Policy as it is defined into the TESE – Thesaurus forEducation Systems in Europe – 2006 Edition60:Education policyMT (04)UF educational policyNT access to educationNT accreditationNT democratisation of educationNT duration of compulsory educationNT duration of studiesNT duration of the academic yearNT duration of the school yearNT forecastingNT free educationNT language policyNT planningNT priority areaNT promotion of mobilityNT reformNT school closureNT setting up a schoolRT educationRT educational authoritycan help in outline the issue. We underlined those terms which are (to differentextents) of interest for an IL policy.3.1.3 Information Literacy as cognitive acquisition of individualsThesis 10: Information competencies (or i-skills) must be certificatedAcquired information competencies constitute the learner dimension of Information Literacy.The cognitive perspective is the most analysed in the literature and a number of standards hasbeen developed for different classes of learners. Of particular interest for the scope of thispaper are the ACRL Competency Standards for Higher Education61 .It is meaningful to distinguish between two main classes of learners:• those still within the cycles of formal education (pupils in primary education, students in secondary and higher or tertiary education);• those already outside the formal education system, i.e. in the lifelong learning context.60 It is meaningful to note that on April 2008 thedescriptor “Information Literacy” is absent from the Tese thesaurus, while it is present in the Eric Thesaurus since1992.61 WP1/D1.1 Page 64 of 77
  • 67. Information competencies achieved within the formal Education fall within the standardevaluation procedures, like any other competence dispensed there. In previous sections theconnotation of the Culture of information as an autonomous discipline has been alreadydiscussed (compare theses 1-3).Out of the formal education cycles, and therefore in the lifelong learning context, it isnecessary to define and develop methodologies for standard certification. In this directioncould be the setting-up of an Information Driving License – perhaps at European level (EiDL62),analogous to the European Computer Driving License (EcDL). The EiDL could be calibrated on aminimum level of competency (the basic level – see thesis 8) in order to be suitable for both amassive operation (see theses 7) and generalised needs, independent from a specificapplication field (see thesis 2).3.2. Consequences of the proposed frameworkThe theses illustrated in the previous sections can be, in turn, assumed as statements to betaken into account in outlining how IL could be institutionalised in Europe, with particular focuson Higher Education institutions.A first step should be that of promoting among academics and policy makers the awareness ofboth the need of IL (see thesis 5) and the distinction between IL and Computer Literacy (thesis4). Alongside, the idea of replicating – mutatis mutandis – an institutional configuration pathsimilar to that of Computer Literacy can be suggested. Both disciplines, in fact, are transversaland useful to every course of study (see thesis 3).A second step could be to insert IL among the learning outcomes of European universities and,particularly, among the so-called “generic instrumental competencies” (theses 11 and 3). Aviable solution could be to integrate the ACRL Competency Standards for Higher Education intothe Tuning project63 activities64.A strong assumption underlying the previous steps is to recognise the Culture of Informationas a discipline in its own right (thesis 1), to be conceived mainly as "knowledge" then as mere"ability" (thesis 2), independent from any subject discipline (thesis 2), except for its applicativecomponent (thesis 1), which can be related to the specialised IL competency level (thesis 10).The second edition of the ANZIL framework65, includes the following table, adapted from thework of Bruce66, illustrating IL program components:: BASILI, C. (ed.) Information literacy in Europe. A first insight into the state of the art of information literacy in the62European Union. Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche, Roma, 2003, 315 pp., p. 963 It is important to underline that the Tuning project is a university-led project. It presents the motivated and generouswork of 128 academics from 105 University departments across the length and breadth of Europe( final report of Tuning phase 1)65 BUNDY, A. (ed.) (2004) Australian and New Zealand Information Literacy Framework. Principles, standards andpractice. Second edition, Australian and New Zealand Institute for Information Literacy, Adelaide.66 BRUCE, C. (2002) Information literacy as a catalyst for educational change: a background paper. White paperprepared for UNESCO, the US National Commission on Libraries and Information Science, and the National Forum onInformation Literacy for use at the Meeting of Information Literacy Experts, Prague The Czech Republic 2002Available: WP1/D1.1 Page 65 of 77
  • 68. Generic Extra curricular classes and/or self paced packages Parallel Extra curricular classes and/or self paced packages that complement the curriculum Integrated Classes and packages that are part of the curriculum Embedded Curriculum design where students have ongoing interaction and reflection with information Table.1 Information literacy program componentsWe would like to use this classification for reasoning about a range of disciplinaryconfigurations of the discipline “Culture of Information” with respect to the academiccurriculum. This implies a reformulation of the Anzil table above as follows: Generic Extra curricular, not credit-bearing Parallel Extra curricular discipline, credit-bearing, optional Integrated A discipline inserted into the curriculum, credit- bearing, mandatory Embedded Part of subject disciplines Tab. 2 - disciplinary configurations of ILAccording to table 2, the responsibility of teaching could be attributed to librarians for thebasic level competencies (what in the table is “generic”) and to academic staff from the LISFaculties for the other configurations. The embedded configuration - corresponding, in ourvision, to what we defined as “specialised competency level” - should be imparted byacademics of the “host” subject discipline.As concluding remarks, according to the research perspective of the European network onInformation Literacy (EnIL), the discussion has been mainly focused to the Higher Educationcontext, even if a large part of the concepts expressed are of general interest.Some of the consequences derived from the proposed framework of analysis are in contrast tothe positions dominating the specialised literature. It is hoped that just this contrast could beof some help in the debate around Information Literacy in Europe.EMPATIC WP1/D1.1 Page 66 of 77
  • 69. SECTION 4: SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY 1. AACC (American Association of Community Colleges).(2008). Position Statement on Information Literacy. 2. ACRL (2006). Information Literacy Standards for Science and Technology (No. Document ID: 108186): American Library Association 3. American Association of School Librarians. (2006). Information Power: Building Partnerships for Learning: Learning and Teaching Principles of School Library Media Programs. 4. Andretta, S. (ed.). (2007). Change and Challenge. Information literacy for the 21st Century. Adelaide: Auslib Press 5. Armstrong, C., et al. (2005). Defining information literacy for the UK. Library and Information Update, 4(1). 6. Association of College & Research Librarie (ACRL). (2000). Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education. Chicago, IL: ACRL 7. Australian and New Zealand Institute for Information Literacy (2004). Australian and New Zealand Information Literacy Framework- 2nd Edition. 8. Barnard, L., et al. (2009). Measuring self-regulation in online and blended learning environments. The Internet and Higher Education, 12, 1-6 9. Basili, C. (2004). Le Réseau européen pour la culture de l’information (EnIL): vers une approche commune dans l’Union européenne pour promouvoir l’usage de l’information. In: Sylvie Chevillotte (Ed.), 3èmes Rencontres FORMIST, June 12th 2003. La formation à la maîtrise de linformation à lheure européenne: problèmes et perspectives (pp. 37- 54). Villeurbanne: Presses de lEnssib 10. Basili, C. (2007). Theorems of Information Literacy. In: Proceedings of the Conference “The Information Literacy Landscape”, Belgrade, Serbia, 5th-7th October 2007 11. Basili, C. (ed.). (2003). Information literacy in Europe. A first insight into the state of the art of information literacy in the European Union. Roma: Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche 12. Basili, C. (ed.). (2008). Infomation Literacy at the crossroad of Education and Information Policies in Europe. Roma: Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche 13. Basili, C. (ed.). (2009).The Observatory on Information Literacy Policies and Research in Europe. Roma: Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche 14. Brown, C., & Krumholz, L. (2002). Integrating information literacy into the science curriculum. College and Research Libraries, 63(2), 111-124 15. Bruce, C. S. (1997). Seven faces of information literacy. Adelaide: AULSIB Press st 16. Campbell, S. (2004). Defining Information Literacy in the 21 century. IFLA 17. Candy, P. (2002). Lifelong Learning and Information Literacy.EMPATIC WP1/D1.1 Page 67 of 77
  • 70. 18. Case, D. (2002). Looking for Information: A Survey of Research on Information Seeking, Needs and Behavior. New York: Academic Press 19. Catts, R., & Lau, J. (2008), Towards Information Literacy Indicators. Paris: Unesco 20. Corrall, S. (2008). Information literacy strategy development in higher education: An exploratory study. International Journal of Information Management, 28, 26-37 21. Eisenberg , M. (2008). Information Literacy: Essential Skills for the Information Age. DESIDOC Journal of Library & Information Technology, 28(2), 39-47 22. Eisenberg, M. (2007). Teaching Information Literacy: Context, Context, Context. In: S. Curzon & L. Lampert (Eds.), Proven strategies for building a successful information literacy program. Neal-Schuman 23. Eisenberg, M., et al. (2004). Information Literacy: Essential Skills for the Information Age. 2nd. Edition. Libraries Unlimited 24. Endrizzi, L. (2006). Les Dossiers dactualité: Information literacy. Lettre VST, 17. INRP (Institut National de Recherche Pédagogique). Veille scientifique et technologique 25. Hancock, V. E. (2004). Information Literacy for Lifelong Learning. 26. Head, A.J. & Eisenberg, M.B. (December 1, 2009). Lessons Learned: How College Students Seek Information in the Digital Age. Project Information Literacy First Year Report with Student Survey Findings. University of Washingtons Information School 27. Head, A.J. & Eisenberg, M.B. (February 4, 2009). Finding Context: What Todays College Student Say about Conducting Research in the Digital Age. Project Information Literacy Progress Report. University of Washingtons Information School 28. Head, A.J. (2007). Beyond Google: How Do Students Conduct Academic Research? First Monday, 12(7) 29. Head, A.J. (2008). Information Literacy from the Trenches: How Do Humanities and Social Science Majors Conduct Academic Research? College and Research Libraries, 69(4) 30. Information Literacy Test (ILT), from Madison Assessment. (2009). 31. Kapitzke, C. (2003). Information Literacy: A Positivist Epistemology and a Politics of Outformation. Educational Theory, 53, 37-53 32. Kelly, O., et al. (2009). Don’t dilly dally on the way: Driving towards digital information literacy capability. In: Same places, different spaces. Proceedings ascilite Auckland 2009. 33. Kuhlthau, C. (1999). Literacy and Learning for the Information Age. In: Stripling, B. (ed.) Learning and Libraries in an Information Age: Principles and Practices. Libraries Unlimited; Teacher Ideas Press: Eaglewood, Colorado, 1999, p. 3-21 [Principles and practices series] 34. Kurbanoglu, S.S., Akkoyunlu, B. & Umay, A. (2006). Developing the information literacy self-efficacy scale. Journal of Documentation, 62(6), 730-743EMPATIC WP1/D1.1 Page 68 of 77
  • 71. 35. Lau, J. (2006), Guidelines on Information Literacy for Lifelong learning. 36. Liu, H., Chuang, H. & Huang, J. (2008). The correlation among web-based learners’ self-efficacy, learning strategies and outcomes. In: K. McFerrin et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference 2008 (pp. 3030-3034). Chesapeake, VA: AACE 37. Lupton, M. (2008). Information literacy and learning. Adelaide: Auslib Press 38. Maybee, C. (2006). Undergraduate perceptions of information use: The basis for creating usercentered student information literacy instruction. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 32(1), 79-85 39. McGuiness, C. (2006). What faculty think – exploring the barriers to information literacy development in undergraduate education. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 32(6), 573-82 40. Mednick, M. (2002). Information Literacy: The New Challenge. California: City of Publication 41. Moore, P. (2002). An Analysis of Information Literacy Education Worldwide. White paper prepared for UNESCO, the U.S. National Commission on Libraries and. Information Science, and the National Forum on Information Literacy, for use at the Information Literacy Meeting of Experts, Prague, The Czech Republic 42. MSCHE (Middle States Commission on Higher Education). (2003). Developing Research and Communication Skills. Guidelines for Information Literacy in the Curriculum. MSCHE 43. New Jersey Institute of Technology (NJIT). (2009). Institute Information Literacy Plan. Newark, NJ: New Jersey Institute of Technology. lit-plan-caa-approved-05-20-2009.pdf 44. Project SAILS (Standardized Assessment of Information Literacy Skills).(2001-2006). Kent State University and the Association of Research Libraries 45. Rader, H. (2002). Information Literacy 1973-2002: A Selected Literature Review. Library Trends, 51(2), 242-259. 46. Reed, M., Kinder, D., & Cecile, F. (2007). Collaboration between librarians and teaching faculty to teach information literacy at One Ontario University: experiences and outcomes. Journal of Information Literacy, 1(3) bs 47. Scharf, D. (2009). Are we teaching our students to be information literate? Newark, NJ: New Jersey Institute of Technology. University Lecture Series. Sept 24, 2009. Powerpoint. 48. Scharf, D., Elliot, N., & Huey, H. (2006). NJIT Assessment Scales: Information Literacy. 49. Scharf, D., et al. (2007). Direct Assessment of Information Literacy Using Writing Portfolios. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 34, 462-477 50. SCONUL Advisory Committee on Information Literacy (1999). Information skills in higher education: a SCONUL Position Paper. The Society of College,National andEMPATIC WP1/D1.1 Page 69 of 77
  • 72. University Libraries 51. Sharma, S., et al. (2007). Self-regulated learning and e-learning. In: H. Österle, J. Schelp & R. Winter (Eds.), Proceedings of the Fifteenth European Conference on Information Systems (pp. 383-394). St. Gallen: University of St. Gallen 52. 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), 96-121. 53. Suskie, L. (2006). Five Dimensions of Good Assessment. Middle States Commission on Higher Education. assessmentsummary-2006.pdf 54. The Bay Area Community Colleges Information Competency Assessment Project (2004). 55. Thornton, S. (2008). Pedagogy, Politics and Information Literacy. Politics, 28(1), 50-56 56. Unesco, Ifla, & Nfil. (2005). The Alexandria proclamation on Information Literacy and Lifelong Learning. 57. Virkus, S. (2003). Information literacy in Europe: a literature review. Information Research, 8(4), paper no. 159 58. Warner, D. A. (2008). An Illustration in Process: Recommended Sequence for Bibliographic and Information Literacy for an Interdisciplinary Program in the Sciences: The Integrated Sciences and Math Major. A Disciplinary Blueprint for the Assessment of Information Literacy. Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited 59. Wilson, T.D. (1981). Unisist Guidelines for Developing and Implementing a National Plan for Training and Education in Information Use, preliminary version. Paris: Unesco 60. Winkworth, F.V. (1977). User education in schools: a survey of the literature on education for library and information use in schools. London: The British Library. Research and Development Departments (BLRDD 5391 HC) 61. Zurkowsky, P. (1974). The information service environment: Relationships and priorities. Washington, DC: National Commission on Libraries and Information Science. Government Printing Office (ED 100391- Eric Clearinghouse) 24sept09.pdf 62. Tsai, M. J. (2009). The model of strategic e-learning: Understanding and evaluating student elearning from metacognitive perspectives. Educational Technology & Society, 12(1), 34-48 63. Head, A.J., & Eisenberg, M.B. (July 13, 2010). Assigning Inquiry: How Handouts for Research Assignments Guide Todays College Students. Project Information Literacy Progress Report.University of Washingtons Information School 64. Head, A.J., & Eisenberg, M.B. (2010). How Todays College Students Use Wikipedia for Course-Related Research. First Monday, 15(3) 65. Information Seeking Skills Test, from James Madison Universitys general education program. (2010). WP1/D1.1 Page 70 of 77
  • 73. 66. Kiliç-Çakmak, E. (2010). Learning strategies and motivational factors predicting information literacy self-efficacy of e-learners. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26(2), 192-208 67. Miller, M.H. (March 16, 2010). Students Use Wikipedia Early and Often Study Shows. Chronicle of Higher Education Early/21850/ 68. Pinto, M. (2010). Design of the IL-HUMASS survey on information literacy in higher education: A self-assessment approach. Journal of Information Science, 36(1), 86-103 69. Truong, K. (July 27, 2010). Research Assignment Handouts Give Students Meager Guidance. Chronicle of Higher Education Assignment-Handouts/123702/?sid=at&utm_source=at&utm_medium=en 70. Weiner, S. & Jackman, L.W. (2010). Information literacy beyond the library: The national forum on information literacy. College & Undergraduate Libraries, 17(1), 114- 120 71. Weiner, S. (2010). Information literacy: A Call to Action, College and Research Library News, 71(7) 72. Weiner, S. (2010). Information Literacy: A Neglected Core Competency. Educause Quarterly, 33(1) nformationLiteracyANeglectedC/199382REFERENCESAmerican Library Association (ALA). (1998). Information literacy standards for student learning: standards andindicators Library Association Presidential Committee on Information Literacy (January 10, 1989). Final report., S. (2005). Information Literacy: A Practitioners’ Guide. Oxford: Chandos Publishing, as cited in Crawford, J.(2006). The Culture of Evaluation in Library and Information Services. Chandos PublishingAssociation of College & Research Libraries (ACRL). (January 2000). Information Literacy Competency Standards forHigher Education. Chicago, IL: ACRL & New Zealand Institute for Information Literacy (ANZIIL), S.C. (2005). Rethinking Generic Graduate Attributes. HERDSA News [Draft, March 5, 2005]Basili, C. (2000). L’assetto disciplinare della Documentazione. Alcune riflessioni. AIDAinformazioni, 18(3/4), 30-35Basili, C. (2001). “Information literacy”: un concetto solo statunitense? (Information literacy: a issue only in theUSA?). AIDAinformazioni, 19(2)EMPATIC WP1/D1.1 Page 71 of 77
  • 74. Basili, C. (2008). Information and education policies in Europe: key factors influencing information literacy academicpolicies in Europe. In: Carla Basili (ed.), Information Literacy at the crossroad of Education and Information Policiesin Europe (pp. 18-32). Roma: Consiglio Nazionale delle RicercheBasili, C. (ed.). (2003). Information literacy in Europe. A first insight into the state of the art of information literacy inthe European Union. Roma: Consiglio Nazionale delle RicercheBasili, C. (ed.). (2003). Information literacy in Europe. A first insight into the state of the art of information literacy inthe European Union (p. 9). Roma: Consiglio Nazionale delle RicercheBasili, C. (ed.). (2008). Information Literacy at the crossroad of Education and Information Policies in Europe. Roma:Consiglio Nazionale delle RicercheBawden, D. (2001) Information and Digital Literacies: A Review of Concepts. Journal of Documentation, 57(2), 218-259Behrens, S.J. (1994). A conceptual analysis and historical overview of information literacy. College & ResearchLibraries, 55(4), 309-322Borko, H. (1968). Information science: What is it? Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 19, 3-5Bruce, C. (2002). Information literacy as a catalyst for educational change: a background paper. White paper preparedfor UNESCO, the US National Commission on Libraries and Information Science, and the National Forum onInformation Literacy for use at the Meeting of Information Literacy Experts, Prague The Czech Republic 2002, C.S. (2000). Information literacy programs and research: an international review. Australian Library Journal,49(3), 209-218Bundy, A. (ed.). (2004). Australian and New Zealand Information Literacy Framework. Principles, standards andpractice. Second Edition. Adelaide: Australian and New Zealand Institute for Information LiteracyCandy, P. (2002). Lifelong Learning and Information Literacy. White paper prepared for UNESCO, the US NationalCommission on Libraries and Information Science, and the National Forum on Information Literacy, for use at theInformation Literacy, meetings of Experts. Prague: The Czech Republic (pp. 1-17)., C.W. (1995). Information Management for the Intelligent Organization: The Art of Scanning the Environment.Medford, NJ: Information TodayChoo, C.W. (1995). Information Management for the Intelligent Organization: Roles and Implications for theInformation Professions. In: Proceedings of the Digital Libraries Conference, March 27-28, 1995, Singapore, C. (1994). Information literacy in an information society: A concept for the information age. Syracuse, NY:ERIC Clearinghouse on Information and TechnologyEuropean Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education (ENQA). (2005). Report on Standards andGuidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area. Helsinki, ENQAGarner, S.D. (2005). High level colloquium on information literacy and lifelong learning. Bibliotheca Alexandrina,Alexandria, Egypt November 6-9, 2005. Report of the meeting WP1/D1.1 Page 72 of 77
  • 75. Horton, F.W. Jr. (1983). Information literacy vs. computer literacy. Bulletin of the American Society for InformationScience, 9(4)Hughes, S.K., & Shapiro, J.J. (1996). Information Literacy as a Liberal Art. Enlightenment proposals for a newcurriculum. Educom Review, 31(2), 31-35, J., & Barham, L. (2005). Information Literacy in the Workplace. The Australian Library Journal, 54(4), 365-376Machlup, F., & Mansfield, U. (1983). The study of information. Interdisciplinary messages. Wiley & SonsMutch, A. (1997). Information literacy: an exploration. International journal of information management, 17(5), 377-86Orr, D., Appleton, M., & Wallin, M. (2001). Information literacy and flexible delivery: creating a conceptualframework and model. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 27(6), 457-463Parry, R. (2003). “Episteme and Techne”. In: Edward N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.Summer 2003 Edition Brevik, P. (2001). Information literacy and lifelong learning: The magical partnership. In: Proceedings of the 1stInternational Lifelong Learning Conference. Central Queensland University, Rockhampton, Queensland, Australia (pp.1-6).The European network for Information Literacy (EnIL) European Observatory on IL Policies and Research European Parliament and the Council of the European Union. (2006). Recommendation of 18 December 2006 onkey competences for lifelong learning. (30.12.2006 EN Official Journal of the European Union L 394/13) Department of Labour. (June 1991). What Work Requires of Schools: A SCANS Report for America 2000.UNESCO. (April 20, 2005). Thematic debate on information literacy: final report., D.J. (1975). Developing a National Information Policy. A NATIS guideline. UNESCO, 24 pp: The issue ofuser education is at the top of the list of priorities for “Developing the Information Plan”Webber, S., & Johnston, B. (2003). Information literacy in the United Kingdom: a critical review. In: Carla Basili (ed.),Information literacy in Europe. A first insight into the state of the art of information literacy in the European Union(pp. 258-283). Roma: Consiglio Nazionale delle RicercheZurkowsky, P. (1974). The information service environment: Relationships and priorities. Washington, DC: NationalCommission on Libraries and Information Science. Government Printing Office (ED 100391- Eric Clearinghouse)EMPATIC WP1/D1.1 Page 73 of 77
  • 76. LIST OF FIGURESFig. 1. Information literacy in the context of lifelong learning.............................................. 6Fig. 2- Excerpts from the Alxandria Proclamation on IL and LLL .......................................... 8Fig. 3. Information literacy and critical thinking. ............................................................. 10Fig. 4 - The SCONUL proposal ...................................................................................... 14Fig. 5 - 21st Century Skills. Source: Parnership for 21st century skills ............................... 15Fig. 6 21st century skills - source: P21 .......................................................................... 16Fig. 7 - Information Literacy within 21st Century Skills (Source P21 framework) ................. 16Fig. 8 - Media Literacy within 21st Century Skills (Source P21 framework) ......................... 17Fig. 9 - ICT or digital Literacy within 21st Century Skills (Source P21 framework) ............... 17Fig. 10 - Standards for the 21st Century Learner, AASL, 2007 .......................................... 18Fig. 11- Class1 skills - - Standards for the 21st Century Learner, AASL, 2007 ..................... 18Fig. 12 - Class1 Dispositions in Action - Standards for the 21st Century Learner, AASL, 2007 19Fig. 13 -- Class1-Responsibilities - Standards for the 21st Century Learner, AASL, 2007 ...... 19Fig. 14. Graphical representation of graduate attributes and their functional aims (Barrie,2004). ...................................................................................................................... 22Fig. 15 - Key Competences for Lifelong Learning — A European Reference Framework ......... 28Fig. 16- representation format of IL best-practices ......................................................... 31Fig. 17 - Perspectives of analysis of the Information Literacy discourse .............................. 54Fig. 18 - Aims and contexts of Information Literacy exploitation....................................... 61LIST OF GRAPHSGraph. 1 - IL initiatives by EU funding Programme .......................................................... 46Graph. 2 - IL initiatives by institution ............................................................................ 47Graph. 3- IL initiatives by Country ................................................................................ 48Graph. 4 - IL initiatives by initiative-type ....................................................................... 49Graph. 5 - IL initiatives by literacy area ......................................................................... 49Graph. 6 - IL initiatives by year of launch ...................................................................... 50Graph. 7 - IL initiatives by Country and year of launch .................................................... 50Graph. 8 - IL initiatives by target community ................................................................. 51LIST OF TABLESTab. 1 - Skills and Tasks for Jobs: A SCANS Report for America 2000 ................................ 27Tab. 2 - disciplinary configurations of IL ........................................................................ 66EMPATIC WP1/D1.1 Page 74 of 77
  • 77. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONSAASL American Association of School LibrariansACRL Association of College and Research LibrariesADAM Advanced Data Archive and Management SystemALA American Library AssociationANZIIL Australian and New Zealand Institute for Information LiteracyCAUL Council of Australian University LibrariansCILIP Chartered Institute of Library and Information ProfessionalsEnIL EnIL – the European network on Information LiteracyENQA European Network for Quality AssuranceESF European structural fundsEU The European UnionFP Framework ProgrammeHE higher educationIFLA International Federation for Library AutomationIL Information literacyJISC Joint Information Systems CommitteeLLL Lifelong learningNFIL National Forum on Information LiteracySCONUL Society of College, National and University LibrariesUNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural OrganisationVET vocational education and trainingEMPATIC WP1/D1.1 Page 75 of 77
  • 78. Project funded by the European Commission under the Lifelong Learning Programme This publication reflects the views only of the author, and the Commission cannot beheld responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein. 1