23 Information Literacy 2.0

Anjali Gulati

  1. Introduction

The advance of participatory technologies and Web 2.0 has modified the surroundings in which people access information and build knowledge. Web 2.0 tools allow people to be both consumers and producers of information, a fact that influences both teaching and learning. These participatory technologies enable reflective learning, independent learning, and the building of learning communities (Aharony & Bronstein, 2014). In the present context, libraries are already offering Information Literacy services that are constructed around the ideas of participatory service and Web 2.0 technologies (Humrickhouse, 2011). This module is designed to highlight several components such as, definitions of Information Literacy, Information Literacy 2.0, Web 2.0 and relation between Web 2.0 and Information Literacy. The topics and sub topics of the module have specially focused on evolution and expansion of concept of Information Literacy, Information literacy 2.0, web 2.0 and its principles.

  1. Defining Information Literacy (IL)

There are a numerous definitions which are extensively acknowledged in discussing and illustrating information literacy.

 

CILIP (Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals) defined it as “knowing when and why you need information, knowing where to find it, and how to evaluate, use and communicate it in an ethical manner.” The Information literate person should have the following skills:

  • 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. (Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals, 2014)

According to Association of College and Research Libraries (2014a), “Information Literacy is the set of skills needed to find, retrieve, analyze, and use information.” “It is a survival skill in the Information Age. Instead of drowning in the abundance of information that floods their lives, information literate people know how to find, evaluate, and use information effectively to solve a particular problem or make a decision. 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. (Association of College and Research Libraries, 2014b).” “Being Information literate ultimately improves our quality of life as we make informed decisions when buying a house, choosing a school, hiring staff, making an investment, voting for our representatives, and so much more (Association of College and Research Libraries, 2014a).” “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. Thus, Information Literacy is, in fact, the basis of a sound democracy. (Association of College and Research Libraries, 2014b).”

 

IFLA’s Information literacy section was established to foster international cooperation in the development of information literacy education in all types of libraries and information institutions. IFLA’s guidelines on Information literacy and Lifelong learning defines Information literacy as a term which is commonly used in the English speaking world to denominate information competencies that imply the capacity to identify when information is needed, and the competence and skill to locate, evaluate and use information effectively. In Spanish, the meaning of information literacy implies the basic school-skills of reading and writing. Literacy is a term used by ministries of education to call the basic teaching of reading and writing, but not necessarily of learning to learn. The preferred term, therefore, is development of information competencies, at least from the Spanish language point of view.

 

Sheila Webber (2010) defines information literacy as : the adoption of appropriate information behavior to identify, through whatever channel or medium information well fitted to information needs, leading to wise and ethical use of information in society. She also recommends an agenda for Information literacy education:

  • IL as context specific and context sensitive;
  • IL demands a variety of behaviors, such as, not just searching, but also encountering, browsing, monitoring, managing and creating;
  • People moving along complex paths to meet their information needs: moving between the virtual and physical worlds, and using different sources and spaces;
  • IL in digital environments;
  • IL with people sources;
  • People being information literate individually and collaboratively;
  • People being aware they are information literate: you cannot be an information literate 21st Century citizen without being conscious of the need to develop these IL skills and attitudes, and continue to update your IL through your life!
  1. Redefining Information Literacy: A smooth Transition to Information Literacy (IL) 2.0

Since there are several aspects of information literacy thus it is not possible to provide an impermeable definition of Information Literacy 2.0. Precisely, “IL 2.0 not a monolithic whole that could be standardized and objectively measured. There is not just one “right and correct” IL 2.0 but many kinds of literacies that can be practiced both collectively and individually. The publishing and information culture of a certain discipline, like law, is not domain-independent but domain-specific. There is no one correct way to practice information skills and only the most general IL “rules” apply equally well to all knowledge domains. IL 2.0 is both a group phenomenon and something taking place in the mind. Web 2.0 technologies give us new means to practice and educate collective and dialogical information creating, seeking and managing skills (Tuominen, 2007). ”

 

IL 2.0 is defined as one of the subset of IL. IL 2.0 calls for broadening of the concept through the inclusion of information spaces that have been brought about Web 2.0, such as the Wikipedia, blogs, social bookmarking services etc. These spaces may well enough be used for research and educational purposes. As presented by figure 1, there is a gradual widening of focus from stable andstructured spaces towards the inclusion of those that are mutable and unstructured, but there is no sharp dividing line drawn between the spaces included in IL and IL 2.0 programs (Spiranec & Zorica, 2010).

 

 

According to Spiranec & Zorica (2010), “IL 2.0 is entirely about using Web 2.0 services in information literacy training and activities i.e. as a medium of information delivery and a method of education. This means that in order to be able to provide information literacy training, librarians and teachers have to use Web 2.0 services and applications, not as isolated tools, but within their IL programs and sessions. This in turn is closely related to the necessity for creating IL programs that will meet the demands of the real world, programs that will address a real audience. It is also observed that web 2.0 services are becoming an important part of many aspects of users’ lives. By ignoring these services, information literacy experts will not share the same place with students, teachers and clients, and their efforts will be significantly limited in range. Nevertheless, bearing in mind the dramatic impact of Web 2.0 on central conceptions of IL, it would be limiting to equate Information literacy 2.0 with the use of new technology in information literacy training.” Hence Information literacy 2.0 should include the range of shifts summarized in Table I (Spiranec & Zorica, 2010).

Table1    Contrasting features of library user education, information literacy and information literacy 2.0

 

Additionally, according to Hapke (2007), Information Literacy 2.0 is seen as a cerebral experience where informal learning is an integral component. “IL 2.0 includes not only learning with information but learning about information and knowledge. It challenges the library based concept of information literacy. In the world of web 2.0, user is seen not as a customer, but as a co-producer; education is not a transfer of information and knowledge but a process to create an ability of reflection and a critical awareness; the library is not a warehouse of information but a place for individual and collaborative experiences and learning. [See Figure 2].”

Figure 2: Information L

  1. What is Web 2.0

A term coined by Tim O’ Reilly of O’ Reilly Media (2005), Web 2.0 describes “the changing trends in the use of World Wide Web technology and Web design that aim to enhance creativity, communications, secure information sharing, collaboration and functionality of the Web.” “The essence of Web 2.0, or the read /write Web, is participation in creating information dynamically, whereas the earlier phase of the Web, or the read /only Web, primarily focused on presenting information statically. Two prominent characteristics of Web 2.0 technologies are multi-way communication and collaborative information creation/ retrieval (Luo, 2010).” Further, “It is a technology shifting the Web to turn it into a participatory platform, in which people not only consume content (via downloading) but also contribute and produce new content (via uploading). Web 2.0 ideas incorporate new techniques (tagging, blogs, wikis, mashups), which are breaking the barriers between users and data-providers, by creating new and useful links among them (Darwsih & Lakhtaria, 2011).”

 

Moreover, it was also noted that “over the years, two defining elements have emerged from Web 2.0. The first is that Web 2.0 is a platform, with applications and files stored on the Web rather than on a user’s desktop; in this arrangement, software is a service (and often a free service) rather than a product. The second defining element of Web 2.0 is participation; the Web is now the participatory Web, the social Web, the read-write Web. We see this as personal activities in Wikipedia, YouTube, Facebook, blogs, video sharing, podcast, and elsewhere as in Figure 3. The idea is that the Web harnesses collective intelligence and empowers users through the formation of communities and the mass publication of user-generated content (Darwsih & Lakhtaria, 2011).”

Figure 3: Some Web 2.0 personal activities tools [transliteracylibrarian.com]

 

Further, Web 2.0 refers to a perceived second generation of web development and design that facilitates communication, secure information sharing, interoperability, and collaboration on the World Wide Web. Moreover, the term Web 2.0 is often applied to a heterogeneous mix of relatively familiar and also very emergent technologies. Social media has become extremely popular as it allows people to connect in the online world to form relationships for personal and business. The term most often refers to activities that integrate technology, social interaction, and the construction of words, pictures, videos and audio. Most of these tools started as business applications and were designed for real time communication before finding their ways to education, learning and every sphere of human endeavour (Olasina, 2011). Examples of such technologies include social networking sites (e.g. Facebook), video sharing sites (e.g. YouTube), wikis, blogs, and social bookmarking sites (e.g. del.icio.us) (Luo, 2010). Chad and Miller (2005) argued that it is important that libraries should begin to use these Web 2.0 tools if they are to prove themselves to be just as relevant as other information providers; they should also start to deliver experiences that meet the modern user’s expectations. Miller (2005) further envisioned the principles of Web 2.0 as:

  • Web 2.0 presages a freeing of data.
  • Web 2.0 permits the building of virtual applications.
  • Web 2.0 is participative.
  • Web 2.0 applications work for the user.
  • Web 2.0 applications are modular.
  • Web 2.0 is about sharing.
  • Web 2.0 is about communication and facilitating community.
  • Web 2.0 is about remix.
  • Web 2.0 is smart.
  • Web 2.0 opens up the Long Tail.
  • Web 2.0 is built upon Trust
  1. Web 2.0 and Information Literacy (IL)

Traditionally, IL instructions in libraries have been about how to use the library, how to access databases, and how to find books and journal articles in the OPAC. Today we have more opportunities and responsibilities to instruct our patrons in the use of Web 2.0 tools in terms of scholarly and authoritative research. Librarians today can help user improve their Information Literacy skills by using tools with which the students are most comfortable (Humrickhouse, 2011). Connection between IL and Web 2.0 would widen the existing literacies.

 

This connection is about: librarian’s own knowledge and abilities, connection with new type of user, content which we could use as teachers, content for users to employ in their study, or to reach the so-called Web generation or all users (Godwin, 2009). Thus, Web 2.0 librarians should help their patrons understand how to use a Web 2.0 tool as a starting point and how to move their search fluidly from there into a library database. The most important responsibility of the Web 2.0 librarian may not be to teach Information Literacy, but rather to build upon and refine the skills that user already have (Humrickhouse, 2011).

 

The various Web 2.0 tools that can be considered as means for teaching information literacy may take the forms of blogs, photo-sharing and video-sharing, tagging and bookmarking sites as well as social networks. According to the white paper issued by Taylor Francis (2014), Godwin (2007) and Lapuz (2009), the commonly used Web 2.0 tools used by librarians in teaching information literacy are:

 

  1. Conclusion

Today, Web 2.0 library is a reality. With the prevalence of Web 2.0, its value is being recognized as a medium to facilitate Information Literacy Instructions (Luo, 2010). “The landscape of Web 2.0 is constantly evolving and it is crucial that librarians stay current with its development and be able to identify the tools that are useful in information literacy instructions. Reading the published literature, following professional blogs and tweeter messages, communicating with colleagues, and attending conferences are helpful measures that librarians can take to keep abreast of the rapidly developing technology (Luo, 2010).” Moreover, librarians should be willing to explore the various Web 2.0 tools and examine their possible application in teaching and learning. They also need to cultivate a keen sense of students’ needs so as to choose the most proper tools to use in the most fitting context (Luo, 2010). Since it’s a world of perpetual beta, so librarians should trial Web 2.0 tools in order to connect to so-called Net Generation and help this generation to develop a sense of context when using information, guide them towards assimilations, deep thinking and reflection (Godwin, 2007).

  1. Summary

Libraries are using Web 2.0 technologies to amplify traditional service delivery, news and current awareness; to improve interaction with users; for marketing and raising our profile; for collaborative project work, peer review, staff development, virtual reference and training/teaching (Godwin & Parker, 2012). This module has been designed to give a succinct idea to the reader about the basic concept of Information literacy; it has highlighted various definitions given by core professional bodies involved in the evolution and development of the concept of Information Literacy, such as, CILIP, ACRL, and IFLA. Further, it has covered the evolution of the concept of Information Literacy 2.0. With the help of diagrams and table it would also explain the close relationship between User education, Information Literacy, Web 2.0 and Information Literacy 2.0. It further delved on the evolution of the concept of web 2.0 and its principles. The module has concluded with the effectiveness of web 2.0 tools in teaching Information Literacy, for example, by using blog, facebook, pinterest, YouTube, blog, wikis, RSS feeds, and social bookmarking sites.

  1. References
  • Aharony, N. & Bronstein, J. (2014). Academic librarians’ perceptions on information literacy: The Israeli Perspective.Retrieved 10 Feb 2015 from https://www.press.jhu.edu/journals/portal_libraries_and_the_academy/portal_pre_print/current/articles/14. 1aharony.pdf
  • Association of College and Research Libraries (2014a). Introduction to Information Literacy. Retrieved 2 Jan 2014 from http://www.ala.org/acrl/issues/infolit/overview/intro
  • Association of College and Research Libraries (2014b). Presidential Committee on Information Literacy: Final Report. Retrieved 2 Jan 2015 http://www.ala.org/acrl/publications/whitepapers/presidential
  • Chad, P & Miller, K.(2005). Do libraries matter? The rise of library 2.0. Retrived 1 Feb 2015 from http://www.capitalibraries.co.uk/downloads/white_papers/DoLibrariesMatter.pdf
  • Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals. (2014). Information Literacy – Definition. Retrieved 5 Feb 2015 from http://www.cilip.org.uk/cilip/advocacy-campaigns-awards/advocacy-campaigns/information-literacy/information-literacy
  • Darwish, A. & Lakhtaria, K. (2011). The impact of the New Web 2.0 Technologies in Communication, development and revolutions of societies. Journal of Advances in Information Technology, 2(4), p. 204-216.
  • Godwin, P. (2007). The Web 2.0 challenge to Information Literacy. INFORUM 2007: 13th Conference on Professional Information Resources. Prague, May 22-24, 2007. Retrieved 29 Jan 2015 from http://www.inforum.cz/pdf/2007/godwin-peter.pdf
  • Godwin, P. (2009).Information literacy and Web 2.0: is it just hype?. Program, 43(3), p. 264 – 274. DOI:
  • http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00330330910978563
  • Godwin, P., & Parker, J. (Eds.). (2012). Information Literacy Beyond Library 2.0. London, UK: Facet Publishing.
  • Hapke, T. (2007). Information literacy activities in Germany between the Bologna process and the web 2.0. Retrieved 7 Jan 2015 from http://doku.b.tu-harburg.de/volltexte/2011/1110/pdf/EnIL_hapke_tubdok.pdf
  • Humrickhouse, E. (2011). Information literacy instruction in the Web 2.0 Library. Retrived 30 Jan 2015 from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED520720.pdf
  • Lapuz, E. B. (2009). Teaching Web 2.0 applications in the planning and development of information literacy programs: Reaching out to librarians and information professionals. Proceedings of the IATUL Conferences. Paper 32. Leuven, Belgium, June 1-4, 2009 Retrieved 29 Jan 2015 from http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/iatul/2009/papers/32
  • Luo, L. (2010). Web 2.0 Integration in Information Literacy Instruction: An overview. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 36(1), p. 32-40. DoI: 10.1016/j.acalib.2009.11.004
  • Maness, J. M (2006). Library 2.0 Theory: Web 2.0 and its implications for libraries, 3(2). Retrieved 31Jan 2015 from http://www.webology.org/2006/v3n2/a25.html
  • Miller, P. (2005). Web 2.0: Building the new library. Ariadne 45. Retrived 1 Feb 2015 from http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue45/miller/
  • Niedbala, M. A & Fogleman, J. (2010). Taking library 2.0 to the next level: Using a course Wiki for teaching information literacy to honors students. Journal of Library Administration, 50, p. 867-882. DOI:
  • 10.1080/01930826.2010.488986
  • Olasina, G. (2011). The Use of Web 2.0 Tools and Social Networking Sites by Librarians, Information Professionals, and Other Professionals in Workplaces in Nigeria, 75 (3), p. 11-43
  • Špiranec, S, & Zorica, M. B. (2010). Information Literacy 2.0: hype or discourse refinement?.Journal of Documentation, 66 (1) p. 140 – 153. DoI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00220411011016407
  • Stephens, M. & Collins, M. (2007). Web 2.0, Library 2.0, and thehyperlinked library. Serials Review, 33 (4), 253-256.
  • Tim O’Reilly (2005) . What is Web 2.0: Design Patterns and Business Models for the Next Generation of Software. Retrieved 5 Feb 2014 from http://www.oreilly.com/pub/a/web2/archive/what-is-web-20.html?page=1
  • Tuominen, K. (2007). Information Literacy 2.0. Singnum, 5, 6-12. Retrived 2 January 2015 from http://lib.eduskunta.fi/dman/Document.phx?documentId=xw14507161520693&cmd=download
  • Taylor & Francis (2014). Use of social media by the library – current practices and future opportunities: A whitepaper. London: Taylor & Francis Group.
  • Webber, S. (2010). “Information Literacy for the 21st Century.” In: Proceedings of INFORUM 2010: 16th
  • Conference on Professional Information Resources: Prague, May 25-27, 2010. INFORUM: Prague. http://www.inforum.cz/pdf/2010/webber-sheila-1.pdf