There are definitions of information literacy to be found all over the place: in articles addressing various learning concerns and initiatives, library websites, and just about any book, article, or blog to do with inquiry. Yet, I realised, just recently, that I have not really adopted one of these set definitions. The school wherein I work does not, overtly, have one with which we are all in accordance. When the term comes up, we all are making pretty significant assumptions, and what’s worse, I don’t think we are aware we are making assumptions. While it is important to ensure a team is working from a shared definition, it is also important to consider that there might be one definition which works a lot better than another for the purpose ahead.
Of course, there is a definition of literacy in the NESA English syllabus glossary, but nothing on digital literacy, information literacy, or metaliteracy. Visual literacy does get a mention, and I think this rather dates our English syllabus in New South Wales. You can dig a little and find definitions of digital literacy and information literacy which are used by one review of the syllabus or another, but nothing quick and ready in the glossaries of the syllabus.
In the last few weeks I have encountered several definitions of information literacy and written a little about my concerns that TLs and educators may be responding to mis/disinformation in a piecemeal sort of manner, and not in a way which considers the information seeking behaviours of individuals in today’s information landscape. However, a definition of information literacy which considers the human at work and play in a ubiquitous information landscape (often a digital landscape) is a vital step in ensuring a deft and rigorous response to mis/disinformation- or even information which may or may not be helpful.
Lee Fitzgerald (2015) points out several of these definitions of information literacy in her article, “Guided Inquiry in practice.” She stresses the importance which a contemporary definition, or definitions, has at the core of inquiry learning and that definitions are always changing (p.17). Among the definitions she shares in this article is from O’Connell’s (2012) “So you think they can learn” wherein he discusses information literacy as a meta-literacy in a constant flow of information exchanges or ‘transactions’ and which becomes a part of the guiding system, or ‘pedagogy of digital participation.” This is one which sits best with me, though one would certainly want a little Kuhlthau peppered throughout, too!
Fitzgerald helped me come to the realisation that it is important to be abreast of several definitions of information literacy (and digital literacy and civil media literacy, etc.. etc…) and, maybe, find the one which best suits the task ahead. There are certainly definitions which work well just about everywhere, but, no doubt, there are definitions which will not just work in the context but lift the whole enterprise. Most importantly, we just need to ensure that the instructional team, faculty, or school all have the same definition(s) in mind when at work.
Fitzgerald, L. (2015). “Guided Inquiry in practice.” Scan. 34 (4).
O’Connell, J. (2012). “So you think they can learn.” Scan 31 (2).
