Tuesday, December 16, 2014

Limberg, Louise, Olof Sundin & Sanna Talja (2012). “Three Theoretical Perspectives on Information Literacy.” Human IT 11.2: 93–130. <http://etjanst.hb.se/bhs/ith/2-11/llosst.pdf>

"A similar conclusion was drawn by Limberg (1998; 1999 see below) claiming that it is the differences between students’ ways of using information that interact closely with the quality of their learning outcomes, not their ways of seeking and finding information" (Limberg et al 2012, p.100).
  • LIMBERG, LOUISE (1999). “Three Conceptions of Information Seeking and Use.” Exploring the Contexts of Information Behaviour. Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Research in Information Needs, Seeking and Use in Different Contexts, 13-15 August 1998, Sheffield, UK. London: Taylor Graham. http://informationr.net/isic/ISIC1998/98_Limberg.pdf 

"An identified information need is often indicated as triggering information
seeking and is seen as an essential dimension of information literacy by librarians, while lecturers rarely experienced or expressed an explicit information need" (101)

"as information seekers we are at the mercy of Google’s individualised ranking of search hits. Likewise, we are dependent on the functionalities offered by Facebook or Twitter. In a similar way, the language tools available within a scientific discipline shape – to a degree – what can be thought, said or written" (105).

"information and the meaning of information is seen as shaped through dialogue with artefacts in practices" (106).

While there are generic aspects of "information literacy," it is also situated in disciplinary practice. "A focus on the tools attributes individual books, databases, journals or web sites particular importance in user education, while a focus on contexts attributes a particular role to the practices where significance and meaning are negotiated" (109).

"Content and form mutually shape each other and should therefore be considered as a whole."..."meaning in information is created through the meeting between people, practices and tools." ... "it varies between practice, situation and medium." (120)
Cope, Jonathan. & Sanabria, Jesús E. (2014). Do We Speak the Same Language?: A Study of Faculty Perceptions of Information Literacy. portal: Libraries and the Academy 14(4), 475-501. The Johns Hopkins University Press. Retrieved December 16, 2014, from Project MUSE database. http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/portal_libraries_and_the_academy/v014/14.4.cope.html

"The interviews revealed that faculty members did not view IL as distinct from their disciplinary practices. When asked about information literacy, faculty members would discuss their discipline and IL in a language that suggested that they did not consciously distinguish between the two. Mostly, they did not regard knowledge of the research process and subject-specific knowledge as disparate entities. Mostly, they did not regard knowledge of the research process and subject-specific knowledge as disparate entities." (490)
"most faculty think about issues that are deeply related to IL, but they are more likely to use the language and rhetoric of their own discipline." (498)