Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.



Published on

information literacy skills and college students

Published in: Economy & Finance, Education
  • Be the first to comment


  1. 1. INFORMATION LITERACY Image credit: jeltovski at
  2. 2. “ Information literacy is the key to solving problems, acting ethically, planning for the future and preparing for change.” Canadian Library Association
  3. 3. Ex: Summarize the contributions of 2-3 major 18 th century French painters in a 5 page essay . “ I know a little about Matisse, but that's it!” 1.1 Define the information problem 1.2 Identify information needed “ I need to find out about 2 other major French painters and summarize what they did.” According to
  4. 4. 2.1 Determine all possible sources 2.2 Select the best sources 3.1 Locate sources and find information Google? Database? Books?
  5. 5. 4.1 Engage (e.g., read, hear, view, touch) 4.2 Extract relevant information 5.1 Organize from multiple sources 5.2 Present the information
  6. 6. 6.1 Judge the product (effectiveness) 6.2 Judge the process (efficiency )
  7. 7. BLOOM'S TAXONOMY Image credit:
  8. 8. Characteristics of adult learners <ul><ul><li>They want practical applications of knowledge, such as professional development. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>They can connect new information to past experiences. </li></ul></ul>
  10. 10. <ul><ul><li>Form, </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>location </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>access </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>methods </li></ul></ul>Library databases Print books e-books Specialized search engines Library of Congress classification system Reputable websites RESOURCE LITERACY
  11. 11. <ul><ul><li>Format & publish ideas </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>electronically </li></ul></ul>blogs podcasts websites Print and online articles PUBLISHING LITERACY
  12. 12. <ul><ul><li>How information </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>is socially situated </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>and produced </li></ul></ul>government business social networks social networks schools SOCIO-STRUCTURAL LITERACY
  13. 13. Understand & use IT research tools Quantitative analysis software RESEARCH LITERACY
  14. 14. <ul><ul><li>Understand & use </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>software, hardware </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>and multimedia </li></ul></ul>networking multimedia TOOL LITERACY
  15. 15. <ul><ul><li>Evaluate </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>human and social strengths; </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>weaknesses, potentials and limits; </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>and benefits and costs </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>of IT </li></ul></ul>history politics culture philosophy CRITICAL LITERACY
  16. 16. <ul><ul><li>Adapt to, understand, evaluate and use emerging innovations in IT </li></ul></ul>EMERGING TECHNOLOGY LITERACY
  17. 17. My definition of information literacy: <ul><ul><li>The ability to access, navigate, </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>evaluate and synthesize information </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>from a variety of resources to make </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>decisions . </li></ul></ul>
  18. 18. Types of information literacy <ul><ul><li>TRADITIONAL : Ability to read </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>PERSONAL: Health/Career/Financial </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>SOCIAL/POLITICAL: Awareness of larger context on information and its impact on the world </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>ACADEMIC: Fi nd research; synthesize information with existing knowledge </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>TECHNOLOGICAL —Navigate new technology </li></ul></ul>
  21. 21. YOUR HEALTH Health image by dani simmonds at <ul><li>53% of Americans have gone online to get health information. </li></ul><ul><li>More Americans go to the Internet to solve problems rather than consult experts. </li></ul>
  22. 22. <ul><li>40% of adult Internet users use online banking (Pew Internet Study, 2006). </li></ul><ul><li>Identity theft is extremely common. </li></ul><ul><ul><li>(image by Dani Simmonds at </li></ul></ul>
  23. 23. CAREER Career <ul><li>In a survey of 100 executive recruiters in 2005, 77 had used Google to check on applicants. 37 of them turned down applicants based on what they found. </li></ul><ul><li>17% of Internet users (and 11% of all Americans) say theyknow someone who has been disciplined or fired because of his or her use of the Internet on the job. </li></ul>
  24. 24. You as a brand <ul><ul><li>A positive online presence can </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>help your career. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>What image do you want to portray? </li></ul></ul>
  25. 25. How long can your information stay online? (beware of Google cache!)
  26. 26. EVALUATION FACTORS: <ul><ul><li>AUTHORITY </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>CURRENCY </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>OBJECTIVITY </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>ACCURACY </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>APPEARANCE </li></ul></ul>
  27. 27. AUTHORITY
  28. 28. Authority Checklist <ul><ul><li>What individual or organization is in charge </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>of the website content (besides the webmaster)? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>What are their credentials and how long have </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>they been in the field? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>What kind of publicity have they generated? </li></ul></ul>
  29. 29. AUTHORITY: What to look for <ul><ul><li>About Us/Contact Us —should at least be on first page if not every page of site </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Check Better Business Bureau or type in company name + “scam” into Google </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Use to see who owns the site** </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Sites requiring private information such as credit card numbers should have an “https” in their URL, not just “http” </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Evaluating Internet Information. </li></ul></ul>
  30. 30. WHOIS NOT FOOLPROOF —Owner can use privacy or masking option .
  31. 31. LACK OF AUTHORITY: who's in charge?
  32. 32. Actual source..... a white supremacy group
  33. 33. BRITISH BROADCASTING CORPORATION ...authority check...
  34. 34. Keep scrolling....
  35. 35. There it is.
  36. 36. C U R R E N C Y Image
  37. 37. CURRENCY CHECKLIST <ul><ul><li>HOW OFTEN DOES CONTENT CHANGE? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>HOW CURRENT IS INFORMATION? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>LAST SITE UPDATE ? </li></ul></ul>
  38. 38. Currency: What to look for <ul><ul><li>Site and blog updates </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Interactive content/user input </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>News bulletins </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Discussion forums (depending on site) </li></ul></ul>
  40. 40. Objectivity [insert graphic] OBJECTIVITY
  41. 41. OBJECTIVITY Look for.... <ul><ul><li>Factual, impartial language VS. emotions & generalizations </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Facts and figures VS. broad assertions & anecdotes </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Multiple viewpoints VS. one opinion and ADS </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Good word choice & usage VS. sloppy proofreading </li></ul></ul>
  42. 42. BBC: Capital Punishment Site (multiple viewpoints, non-biased text, appropriate language)
  43. 43. Fox news website (biased language)
  44. 44. ACCURACY : Photo courtesy of
  45. 45. ACCURACY CHECKLIST <ul><ul><li>Can the information on the site be confirmed elsewhere? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Is the information edited and checked before it goes online? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Is the information error-free ? </li></ul></ul>
  46. 46. WebMD: drug information can be researched and verified
  47. 47. The Flat Earth Society (not so accurate)
  48. 48. APPEARANCE
  49. 49. APPEARANCE LIST <ul><ul><li>FIRST GLANCE: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Multiple ads & pop-ups BAD </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Long flash intro w/o skip option BAD </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Quality graphics GOOD </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Harmonious colors GOOD </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>ACCESSIBILITY: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Text-only or other version GOOD </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>“ Alt” tags GOOD </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Download options GOOD </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Cross-browser friendly GOOD </li></ul></ul>
  50. 50. APPEARANCE LIST <ul><ul><li>USER-FRIENDLY: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Consistent navigation on each page? GOOD </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Site index? GOOD </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Contact Us link? GOOD </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>CONTENT: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Poor Punctuation BAD </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Poor Grammar BAD </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Good spelling GOOD </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Consistent font size & type GOOD </li></ul></ul>
  51. 51. LIBRARY OF CONGRESS website is user-friendly: consistent navigation, no ads
  52. 52. Wikipedia: Anyone can edit it. They also solicit donations.
  53. 53. <ul><ul><li>SO....WHAT </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>ABOUT </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>WIKIPEDIA? </li></ul></ul>
  54. 54. WIKIPEDIA: THE GOOD ... <ul><li>Great info on pop culture and tech </li></ul><ul><li>99% of contributors =dedicated few </li></ul><ul><li>Links to good resources </li></ul>
  55. 55. WIKIPEDIA: THE BAD (AND THE UGLY) . ... <ul><li>The other 1% </li></ul><ul><li>No expert editing </li></ul><ul><li>Short on academic information </li></ul>“ Breaking Bad” photo credit:
  56. 56. WEB EVALUATION FACTORS: <ul><ul><li>AUTHORITY </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Who is responsible for the website; are they qualified? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>CURRENCY </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>How current is the information? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>OBJECTIVITY </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Are there facts, figures and multiple points of view? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>ACCURACY </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Can statements be verified? Are they true? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>APPEARANCE </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Professionalism and accessibility </li></ul></ul>
  57. 57. Site evaluation sheets: 1. Decide which site is reputable and which is not (one is a hoax site). 2. Give 2 examples for each of why or why not that include authority, accuracy, objectivity, appearance or currency . Example: Site A is not a good resource because.... 2-3 minutes.
  58. 60. Site evaluation: possible answers. <ul><li>Dihydrogen Monoxide— NOT reputable. Why not? </li></ul><ul><li>Possible answers: </li></ul><ul><li>LOTS of advertising (APPEARANCE, OBJECTIVITY, AUTHORITY), including a Southpark ad (???) </li></ul><ul><li>No https, only http (AUTHORITY) </li></ul><ul><li>“ May not be able to reply to e-mail” (AUTHORITY) </li></ul><ul><li>Bottom of page: “content veracity not implied” (AUTHORITY) </li></ul><ul><li>Editorial (OBJECTIVITY) </li></ul><ul><li>Science News—reputable. Why? </li></ul><ul><li>Possible answers: </li></ul><ul><li>Good quality graphics; consistent font (APPEARANCE) </li></ul><ul><li>Regular issues, RSS feeds, e-mail alerts (CURRENCY) </li></ul><ul><li>Facts that can be checked--Peru volcano (OBJECTIVITY) </li></ul>
  59. 61. WEB EVALUATION FACTORS (review): <ul><ul><li>AUTHORITY </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Who is responsible for the website; are they qualified? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>CURRENCY </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>How current is the information? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>OBJECTIVITY </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Are there facts, figures and multiple points of view? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>ACCURACY </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Can statements be verified? Are they true? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>APPEARANCE </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Professionalism and accessibility </li></ul></ul>
  60. 62. HAPPY HUNTING! Picture courtesy of Jubsen at