Reframing Information Literacy as a Metaliteracy

Thomas P. Mackey and Trudi E. Jacobson

Social media environments and online communities are innovative col- laborative technologies that challenge traditional definitions of information literacy. Metaliteracy is an overarching and self-referential framework that integrates emerging technologies and unifies multiple literacy types. This redefinition of information literacy expands the scope of generally understood information competencies and places a particular emphasis on producing and sharing information in participatory digital environments.

he emergence of social media technology. As part of a metaliteracy and collaborative online com- reframing, we argue that producing and munities requires a reframing sharing information are critical activities of information literacy as a in participatory Web 2.0 environments. metaliteracy that supports multiple liter- Information literacy is central to this acy types. Social media environments are redefinition because information takes transient, collaborative, and free-flowing, many forms online and is produced and requiring a comprehensive understand- communicated through multiple modali- ing of information to critically evaluate, ties. Information literacy is more signifi- share, and produce content in multiple cant now than it ever was, but it must be forms. Within this context, information is connected to related literacy types that not a static object that is simply accessed address ongoing shifts in technology. and retrieved. It is a dynamic entity that is Through this overarching approach to produced and shared collaboratively with information literacy, we examine the term such innovative Web 2.0 technologies as within a new media environment. Met- Facebook, Twitter, Delicious, Second Life, aliteracy promotes critical thinking and and YouTube. Several competing concepts collaboration in a digital age, providing of literacy have emerged including digital a comprehensive framework to effectively literacy, media literacy, visual literacy, and participate in social media and online information technology fluency, but there communities. It is a unified construct that is a need for a comprehensive framework supports the acquisition, production, and based on essential information proficien- sharing of knowledge in collaborative on- cies and knowledge. New media literacy line communities. Metaliteracy challenges and transliteracy have also responded traditional skills-based approaches to in- to the rapid and ongoing changes in formation literacy by recognizing related

Thomas P. Mackey is Interim Dean in the Center for Distance Learning at SUNY Empire State College; e-mail: [email protected]. Trudi E. Jacobson is Head of User Education Programs in the University Libraries of University at Albany, SUNY; e-mail: [email protected]. © Thomas P. Mackey and Trudi E. Jacobson

62 crl-76r1 Reframing Information Literacy as a Metaliteracy 63 literacy types and incorporating emerg- the information knowledge required to ing technologies. Standard definitions participate in these new environments. of information literacy are insufficient In 1989, ALA issued the Presidential for the revolutionary social technologies Committee on Information Literacy: Final currently prevalent online. Report, which states that students must play an active role in knowing, identify- Literacy Frameworks ing, finding, evaluating, organizing and We begin with an exploration of tradi- using information.2 While these elements tional information literacy frameworks are generic and applicable to a variety of defined in the most common profes- situations, they do not address the now sional standards. The standards reflect pervasive online environments in which how information literacy is generally many forms of information are fluid understood within the field of library and and information seekers might become information science and they continue to information contributors at almost any inform the learning outcomes mandated time and in a public setting. While using by accrediting agencies and developed information in this standard definition by course instructors. This examination suggests a range of author practices, it leads to a review of multiple literacy exists independently from the act of cre- types in relation to metaliteracy. Over ating and sharing information through time these competing literacy frameworks collaborative ventures. The definition ad- have developed in response to emerging opted by ACRL eleven years later expands technologies, but the connections to in- upon the ALA definition by emphasizing formation literacy have not always been the depth of the information needed, the fully developed or recognized. We are ability to find the information effectively interested in locating similarities among and efficiently, the incorporation of new different literacy definitions to support a information with existing knowledge, cohesive metaliteracy framework, with a and an understanding of the information particular emphasis on the overarching environment. competencies that define literacy in new The Society of College, National and media environments. University Libraries in the United King- dom developed the SCONUL Seven Information Literacy Pillars Model for Information Literacy Information literacy was the term used in 1999. The Briefing Paper: Information most frequently in the United States from Skills in Higher Education3 outlines seven the late 1980s through most of the 1990s headline skills or pillars that are similar and is still used regularly.1 Professional to those identified by ACRL the following and educational organizations, such as year. SCONUL included “the ability to the American Library Association (ALA), construct strategies for locating informa- the Association of College and Research tion”4 and “the ability to synthesize and Libraries (ACRL), the Society of Col- build upon existing information, contrib- lege, National and University Libraries uting to the creation of new knowledge.”5 (SCONUL), and the Middle States Com- These two skills do not appear in ACRL’s mission on Higher Education (MSCHE), definition, but they are identified in their have developed definitions of information standards, performance indicators, and literacy and outlined characteristics of outcomes.6 The SCONUL model also information-literate individuals. These specifically addresses increasing levels definitions share numerous, but not all, of competence in each of the seven skills, of the elements. However, they were all and it is only when individuals are more developed prior to the astonishing rise expert in their abilities that they reach the of social media and collaborative online level of being able to synthesize and cre- communities and do not fully address ate information.7 MSCHE’s information 64 College & Research Libraries January 2011 literacy component goals also address accrediting agencies and for the develop- increased abilities from first-year under- ment of learning outcomes within courses graduate through graduate student.8 and programs. At the same time, however, In discussing information skills, SCO- these institutional frameworks are not on NUL differentiates between study skills, the cutting edge of emerging trends; they such “as being able to use an institutional lag behind the innovations of Web 2.0 library and its resources to further one’s and social media. Metaliteracy expands study,”9 and a more advanced skill set that the scope of information literacy as more allows people to be prepared for activities than a set of discrete skills, challenging us and jobs following higher education. This to rethink information literacy as active second set includes understanding how knowledge production and distribution information is produced and being able to in collaborative online communities. evaluate it. Specifically referred to is the Several literacy frameworks have fact that “it may be textual and published emerged that relate to information and information but will also include other technology in a digital age. Many of these forms of information communication, related literacy types share the same skills formal and informal, designed and fortu- with information literacy, although in itous, interpersonal and via information some instances the connections are not a technologies in a much more encom- part of the literacy definition. This review passing way.”10 SCONUL has recently of related literacy types illustrates many expanded upon the seven headline skills, of the inherent connections to information including examples that acknowledge the literacy, supporting a metaliteracy model changing information environment.11 RSS based on a comprehensive construct for feeds are listed as a way to update infor- multiple literacy perspectives. mation searches, while emphasizing the importance of understanding the source Media Literacy of information and the need to evaluate In 1992, the Aspen Institute defined it carefully. media literacy as “the ability of a citizen Social media and online collabora- to access, analyze, and produce informa- tive communities are not specifically tion for specific outcomes.”14 In 2008, the addressed in the standard definitions, Center for Media Literacy expanded its but many of the highlighted skills are definition considerably in Literacy for the pertinent to today’s information environ- 21st Century: An Overview and Orienta- ment. The new media context, however, tion Guide to Media Literacy Education.15 requires a refinement of existing com- In this update, media literacy “provides petencies, as well as the recognition of a framework to access, analyze, evalu- producing and sharing information in ate, create and participate using mes- collaborative online environments. SCO- sages in a variety of forms.”16 In the NUL’s expanded description of pillar six revised definition we see similarities to specifically mentions the need to share the information literacy characteristics, information in academic situations, in particularly focused on accessing, ana- the personal realm, and in the workplace, lyzing, and evaluating information, but using a variety of mediums.12 ACRL’s a stronger emphasis is placed on creating standard four, performance indicator and participating, which together “builds three is concerned with communicating an understanding of the role of media information products, using appropriate in society, as well as essential skills of technologies and designs, to meet the inquiry and self-expression necessary needs of the audience.13 for citizens of a democracy.”17 In the The standard definitions respond to expanded description, media literacy is trends in the field of library and infor- framed within a larger social context that mation science and provide guidance for requires individuals to know how to find Reframing Information Literacy as a Metaliteracy 65 and evaluate information or “messages” technologies. The term Information Com- and to contribute, using the same tools, munication and Technology (ICT) has also in a democratic way.18 This emphasis on been associated with Digital Literacy. The participation is similar to the standard International ICT Literacy Panel defined definition of information literacy that ICT literacy as “using digital technology, prepares individuals to “use information communications tools, and/or networks in such a way that others can learn from to access, manage, integrate, evalu- them,”19 but this aspect of information ate, and create information in order to literacy has not been fully developed function in a knowledge society.”24 This for interactive digital environments. It is report does not mention information lit- generally understood that the informa- eracy explicitly, even though it shares the tion environment includes technology same goals for accessing and evaluating and that lifelong learning skills prepare information.25 In addition, ICT Literacy individuals to adapt to these changes. includes the technical considerations of digital literacy, to be proficient in using Digital Literacy technology tools, to manage, integrate, Paul Gilster defines digital literacy as and create information.26 “the ability to access networked com- puter resources and use them,”20 which Visual Literacy encompasses both the “access” and “use” While the concept for visual literacy has characteristics of information literacy. been around since John Debes introduced Gilster associates digital literacy with it in 1969, recent definitions focus on the critical thinking and argues that one of relationship of this framework to digital its core competencies “is the ability to technology.27 For instance, in their discus- make informed judgments about what sion of digital literacy, Jones-Kavalier and you find on-line.”21 Similarly, Barbara R. Flannigan make connections to visual Jones-Kavalier and Suzanne L. Flannigan literacy, which they define as “focused relate digital literacy and critical thinking on sorting and interpreting—sometimes in Connecting the Digital Dots: Literacy of the simultaneously—visual actions and 21st Century, stating that this form of lit- symbols.”28 This literacy relates to the eracy is “the ability to read and interpret “evaluation” and “use” characteristics of media (text, sound, images), to reproduce information literacy, but this competency data and images through digital manipu- is focused more specifically on visual and lation, and to evaluate and apply new design issues than standard definitions of knowledge gained from digital environ- information literacy. According to Jones- ments.”22 This comprehensive definition Kavalier and Flannigan, “a visually liter- of the term includes the critical thinking ate person can communicate information and evaluative characteristics commonly in a variety of forms and appreciate the addressed in information literacy. The masterworks of visual communication.”29 authors make direct references to digital In addition, they assert that an individual technology by stating that “digital literacy with these visual competencies have “a represents a person’s ability to perform sense of design—the imaginative ability tasks effectively in a digital environment, to create, amend, and reproduce images, with ‘digital’ meaning information rep- digital or not in a mutable way.”30 This resented in numeric form and primarily part of the definition addresses the par- for use by a computer.”23 Jones-Kavalier ticipatory nature of digital environments, and Flannigan situate the literacy activ- which may include interactive Web ity within specific digital environments, applications or digital editing software, whereas information literacy tends to but it also suggests forms that may not focus on broader information environ- be digital. Peter Felton defines visual ments that necessarily include a range of literacy as a lifelong learning competency 66 College & Research Libraries January 2011 that “involves the ability to understand, an awareness of online communications, produce, and use culturally significant privacy issues, diversity online, and acces- images, objects, and visible actions.”31 Fel- sibility.39 Cyberliteracy shares the overall ton compares the ability to make meaning goals of information literacy to move through images with the ability to com- beyond basic computer literacy and to municate through writing and addresses encourage critical thinking as an active the influence of changing technologies and informed citizen. At the same time, on this process. He argues that “techno- cyberliteracy is more specifically related logical change has made it increasingly to issues surrounding Internet use and possible for ordinary people, not just participation than information literacy professionals, to become visual design- definitions tend to articulate. ers,”32 which suggests that, through this increased access to these digital resources, Information Fluency individuals must be better equipped to In 1999, the Committee on Information make meaning with these tools. In this Technology Literacy published Being Flu- case, the ability to access, evaluate, and ent with Information Technology.40 Fluency use information relates directly to the shares one of the primary goals of infor- visual and is developed within a social mation literacy: for learners to acquire context that is mediated by technology. a deeper level of comprehension and engagement with ideas than just learning Cyberliteracy how to use a computer. It is described as Laura J. Gurak introduces the term cy- “a set of intellectual capabilities, concep- berliteracy to address the communication tual knowledge, and contemporary skills and participatory aspects of the Internet.33 associated with information technology,” She argues that “cyberliteracy means while information literacy is a critical voicing an opinion about what these thinking activity focused on research and technologies should become and being author practices.41 Information Fluency an active, not passive participant.”34 This developed at a time when advances in approach is similar to the critical thinking desktop computing, and the emergence and evaluative aspects of information of networks, through linked computers, literacy, although cyberliteracy is specific the Internet, and Web, changed how we to the Internet and Web environments. understood technology from an area Gurak argues that, to be cyberliterate, an specialization for experts, to a common individual must be “more than a user” set of tools that influenced many aspects of technology and must “become an of life. This shift in emphasis required a active participant in the discussion.”35 more comprehensive approach to tech- Similarly, Evelyn Stiller and Cathie nology than computer literacy offered. LeBlanc reinforce the participatory as- In today’s social media environment pects of cyberliteracy and argue that, to especially, information and technology promote this form of literacy, educators continuously intersect through a range must teach students “how to critically of Web-based applications that allow consume Internet content as well as how individuals to easily access, produce, and to use a variety of media on the Internet share information. to express their own viewpoints.”36 They Fluency and information literacy define specific elements of cyberliteracy are similar in many ways and share a that include such abilities as “using the common objective for moving beyond Internet to express political, creative, and the acquisition of basic computer skills. artistic viewpoints”37 and understanding The differences between information “the variety of social and ethical issues fluency and information literacy, how- associated with Internet communica- ever, were clearly defined by the original tion.”38 Other related elements include document, Being Fluent with Information Reframing Information Literacy as a Metaliteracy 67

Technology, which states: “information it in an empowering and participatory literacy and FITness are interrelated manner.46 James W. Marcum asserts that but quite distinct.”42 While information the broadly defined goals of information literacy is discussed as a critical thinking literacy are not realistic and that in prac- activity focused on research and author tice it is too limited, especially because of practices, fluency is described as “a set what he sees as an overemphasis on skills of intellectual capabilities, conceptual development.47 He suggests that informa- knowledge, and contemporary skills as- tion literacy attempts to cover too much sociated with information technology.”43 while being exceedingly focused on print ACRL made a clear distinction between culture, which diminishes the importance the two terms as well by asserting that: of new media environments.48 Marcum “information literacy initiates, sustains, carefully examines related literacy terms, and extends lifelong learning through but he does not situate information lit- abilities which may use technologies but eracy as an overarching competency for are ultimately independent of them.”44 the other models. Instead, he calls for a This is an intentional separation from any refocused approach that incorporates specific technology, in support of a wider technology considerations. perspective on information competencies. Christine Pawley agrees with Mar- At the same time, however, it diminishes cum’s assertion that information literacy the relationship between the two concepts has been the primary professional focus and the ways in which information lit- of the field of library and information eracy informs fluency and related digital science for some time, responding to the competencies. challenges of technology and the Internet The standard definitions of informa- in particular. But she identifies an inher- tion literacy share many commonalities ent divide in the term itself, which she with related literacy types, with a par- sees as “contradictory” because it creates ticular emphasis on discrete information “a tension between conflicting ideals of, skills. Most of the differences are based on the one hand, a promethean vision of on changes in technology, such as digital citizen empowerment and democracy, and networked environments. and, on the other, a desire to control ‘quality’ of information.”49 Pawley also Toward a Metaliteracy challenges the conception of “information Within the field of library and information as a thing” because of the limited expecta- science, traditional definitions of infor- tion that libraries organize and facilitate mation literacy have been challenged, information as a commodity. She argues suggesting a need for an expanded that we need to move beyond a skills- metaliteracy framework. James Elmborg based approach to information literacy, argues for a “critical information literacy” especially in response to technological model based on the influence of critical innovations such as the Web. Pawley as- pedagogy and critical literacy theory. He serts that “rather than focusing only on argues that “by developing critical con- negotiating some essentialist concept of sciousness, students learn to take control the term and on the best techniques for of their lives and their own learning to be- transmitting the agreed-upon skills, we come active agents, asking and answering should also be debating what, funda- questions that matter to them and to the mentally, we are trying to do when we world around them.”45 Similarly, Troy A. engage in information literacy practices, Swanson argues that, in making a transi- however defined”50 As a starting point, tion from a print-based culture to a Web Pawley challenges the field to engage in a environment, we must provide students “critical approach to information literacy” with a critical perspective to learn more that moves beyond skills development, about information itself and how to use addresses the inherent contradictions of 68 College & Research Libraries January 2011 the term itself, thinks beyond information with emerging technologies and learner- as a commodity, and instead focuses on centered production of information. the production of knowledge in collabora- Rather than separate information literacy tion with others. from other forms of literacy, we argue In his analysis of “new literacies,” that a comprehensive understanding of John Buschman argues that the litera- information and related competencies ture focuses too much on trends in new are central to these literacy concepts. technology, especially as an influence on This approach is grounded in the idea literacy, and that we do not need to sepa- that emerging technologies are inherently rate information literacy from its origins different from print and require active en- in bibliographic instruction.51 Similar to gagement with multiple information for- Pawley, Buschman suggests that we need mats through different media modalities. a more coherent and complex response While ongoing changes in technology to new media than simply focusing on have created a range of responses in the skills development and the technologies field, calling for a fundamental shift in themselves. Buschman, however, sup- how we understand information literacy ports a broader historical view of literacy itself, other perspectives support the ac- and states that “we have to question the tive use of emerging technologies in in- inherent claim or assumption that IL must formation literacy contexts. For instance, of necessity distinguish itself from its his- Kara Jones explores the potential for using tory of bibliographic instruction (and its social technology to support information variants) by invidious distinctions with literacy and argues that “online social ‘old-fashioned’ forms of literacy.”52 This technologies such as Weblogs, wikis and perspective challenges the ideas prevalent social bookmarking can be used to build in new media studies that emerging tech- fluency in the skills required to be infor- nologies are in any way revolutionary and mation literate.”55 She matches several so- require a new form of literacy. He asserts cial technologies with information literacy that “while a certain amount of sobriety competencies based on an “information concerning the electronic and digital age cycle” model that “helps demonstrate to seems to have finally taken hold, we are learners that social technologies can be currently faced with high-flying claims used to identify and locate information at about fundamental cognitive shifts be- the stage when it’s most difficult to find, ing rapidly brought about by that age.”53 as research in progress.”56 Jones argues For Buschman, the newness of an ap- that these resources are useful as sources proach should not take precedence over of information and as tools for explora- well-established practices that have been tion in support of “higher-order thinking developed within the field of information skills,” but she does not suggest revisions literacy and bibliographic instruction. He to the existing information literacy char- argues that our approaches to literacy acteristics based on this approach.57 Craig “will be stronger acknowledging their Gibson asserts that academic librarians cognitive and epistemological founda- are faced with many “nomenclature chal- tions” that support an intellectual core lenges” associated with the “sometimes based on critical reading and thinking.54 overlapping and sometimes diverging This is a useful perspective as we argue cluster of terms centered on technol- for information literacy as a metaliteracy, ogy skills—information technology (IT) because this approach requires us to fluency, technology literacy, computer recognize the relationships between core literacy, digital literacy, and others.”58 He information literacy competencies and argues for an integrated and collaborative emergent literacy frameworks. At the approach to information literacy instruc- same time, however, metaliteracy is a tion that infuses technology into the skill concept that promotes active engagement set.59 Gibson is interested in a blended Reframing Information Literacy as a Metaliteracy 69 learning model that incorporates both as well as awareness of audience and the information fluency and information lit- ways that messages are interpreted in eracy into the curriculum and in support different ways. Hobbs supports an ap- of lifelong learning goals, but he does not proach to media literacy that places the propose changes to information literacy learner at the center of “mediamaking,” within this combined context.60 but not simply to promote the experience Kimmo Tuominen examines the impact of production.66 Hobbs argues that “there of emerging technologies on information is so much to learn about yourself and the literacy and states that “new kinds of media system that surrounds you—and literacies are needed in dealing with the some of this learning occurs best through various born-digital document types and practical experience, working in a team, genres—like sms messages, emails, blogs, creating a real media message for a real wikis, podcasts and RSS feeds—that are audience.”67 Based on a research study on forming an increasingly larger part of media literacy acquisition, Hobbs argues our present day and future information that “students who received media- environments.”61 Tuominen suggests literacy instruction were more likely to that Web 2.0 technologies have led to an recognize the complex blurring of infor- “erosion of information contexts,” based mation, entertainment, and economics on anonymous, fluid, and virtual spaces.62 that are present in contemporary nonfic- The author calls for a redefinition of in- tion media.”68 This finding reinforces the formation literacy as a 2.0 framework that idea that media literacy instruction, with prioritizes “users’ conceptual understand- an emphasis on user-centered production ings of their information environment” of information, advances student learn- over traditional skills, such as the ability ing beyond discrete skills in support of to conduct Boolean searches.63 Beyond the higher order critical thinking. The same field of library and information science, study found that “students who received the term “transliteracy” has emerged in media-literacy instruction appeared to response to developments in new media. have a more nuanced understanding of According to Thomas et al., transliteracy interpreting textual evidence in different is defined as “the ability to read, write media formats to identify an author’s and interact across a range of platforms, multiple purposes and intended target tools and media from signing and orality audiences.”69 Traditional definitions of through handwriting, print, TV, radio information literacy do not consider and film, to digital social networks.”64 As collaborative media production and the with metaliteracy, the term transliteracy is impact on learning, which is why we intended to unify competing approaches need an expanded metaliteracy model to literacy. According to the authors, with an emphasis on active production “transliteracy is an inclusive concept and sharing of new knowledge through which bridges and connects past, present technology. and, hopefully, future modalities,” which As we have seen, there are many chal- indicates a broader need to converge lenges to the standard information literacy multiple methodologies, including analog definition based on the emergence of new and digital formats. social technologies. While new literacy In her discussion of new media lit- movements have similar foundation ele- eracy, Renee Hobbs identifies the “key ments to information literacy, specifically unifying principles” of media literacy, related to critical reading and critical think- based on the idea that messages are so- ing, as well as proficiencies in finding, cially constructed “representations of the synthesizing, and creating information, world.”65 Her definition recognizes the differences are often emphasized based importance of the economic and political on the specificity of technology or media considerations of message construction, formats. As each new form of literacy is in- 70 College & Research Libraries January 2011 troduced, the shared literacy goals related this is a process of learning how to learn. to critical thinking and information skills Information-literate individuals acquire are often overlooked, creating an unneces- the ability to understand information sary divide between information literacy using different forms of technology. They and other literacy types. The information apply information knowledge gained literacy literature has also contributed to from a wide range of verbal, print, media, this separation in an effort to clarify im- and online sources and continuously portant distinctions between information refine skills over time. This constitutes a and computer skills, or between traditional practice of critical engagement with one’s bibliographic instruction and new media world as active and participatory learners. literacy. Metaliteracy reinforces stronger In proposing metaliteracy as over- connections between information literacy arching and related to many literacy and other literacy frameworks. This ap- frameworks, we suggest changes to the proach looks at the foundation principles way information literacy is perceived that unite information and technology, as a primarily skills-based approach to rather than focusing on differences based learning. This is a shift in emphasis from on discrete skills, distinct technologies, or discrete skills to collaborative production media formats. and sharing of information using partici- patory interactive technologies. Metalit- Metaliteracy eracy provides the integral foundation Metaliteracy is an overarching, self-refer- for additional literacy types, recognizing ential, and comprehensive framework that social media environments as active informs other literacy types. Information collaborative spaces for accessing and literacy is the metaliteracy for a digital sharing one’s findings. This requires us age because it provides the higher order to move beyond skills development to an thinking required to engage with multiple understanding of information as dynami- document types through various media cally produced and shared online. As part formats in collaborative environments. of this process, we examine metaliteracy Many of the information literacy char- in practice, describing the challenges acteristics are central to multiple literacy of emerging technologies and offering perspectives, defining a literacy frame- recommendations for actively engaging work about literacy. Metaliteracy provides students with new media. an integrated and all-inclusive core for engaging with individuals and ideas in Metaliteracy in Practice digital information environments. Understand Format Type and Delivery Based on the prevalent information Mode literacy definitions, someone who is infor- In today’s new media environment, infor- mation literate knows how to determine mation seekers must not only determine when information is needed, access in- the extent of information needed, but also formation using a range of tools, evaluate the format and delivery mode of the in- the information through critical thinking formation itself. While this situation is not and analysis, and incorporate information new, format choice applies to a far wider into something new through a synthesis range of topics now than it did when of materials. These competencies require ACRL originally defined the informa- individuals to understand and use in- tion literacy outcomes. In the past, those formation based on critical reading and researching art, for example, would inher- writing. While media and technology ently understand the need to find visual formats continue to change, the compre- images as well as written documents to hensive nature of information literacy support the historical context or external prepares individuals to adapt to shifting interpretations of the image itself. Due information environments. In many ways, to the expanding range of audio, video, Reframing Information Literacy as a Metaliteracy 71 and image types currently available, all model: deciding on what information is researchers must decide if nonprint for- needed may occur at the same time as mats will enhance their search, and then information is accessed, so the evaluation be familiar with the tools needed to find of information needs to take place earlier them, such as Flickr, YouTube, or other in the process. Web-based tools for uploading, tagging, and sharing digital information. In these Evaluate User Feedback as Active instances, the researcher must understand Researcher the format type and how it functions as an Web-based applications have completely interactive social media tool to make in- changed our expectations of where and formed determinations about the content. how to find information. Long before the These resources also combine text, image, emergence of Web 2.0 and mobile tech- video, and meta-information through the nologies, the omnipresence of the Web, medium itself, creating multipurpose and the ease and convenience of using it, information types that require a critical made it the central and perhaps exclusive analysis of the integrated format. location for those seeking information. As the number of information sources As Web resources develop and expand, continues to increase, skills connected it is the increasingly rare researcher with determining the extent of informa- who starts a quest for information using tion required for a particular search must books or other long-established formats be more finely honed. A sense of infor- such as paperbound scholarly journals. mation overload or perhaps uncertainty They may use books or journals eventu- about how to make choices among many ally, but will have done so through the options may cause researchers (especially prism of Google Books, Google Scholar, novice searchers) to truncate or give up Amazon, or perhaps through an e-book on the process of assessing how much in- reader such as Kindle. This situation formation is needed, or to abrogate prior points to a critical issue related to finding determination, basing decisions solely information effectively and efficiently: on results retrieved while searching. It are the most effective tools for the type is critical that decisions about how much of information needed being used and and what type of information is needed how do we efficiently incorporate the new should be revised throughout the search social resources into our search process? process, yet an initial goal should be set. Is Google or another basic search engine Searchers may also access user feedback being applied to find information that elements in information tools, such as might better be sought through more Amazon’s book or media reviews, to re- sophisticated and targeted resources such vise their search parameters. They must as specialized search engines or databases be careful about doing so, taking time to that index the literature of a field? Google assess the applicability of such feedback Scholar and Google Books continue to ex- to their actual needs. In addition, the pas- pand and improve and the user-friendly sive recommendations from users at so- search box design has been incorporated cial bookmarking sites such as Delicious into Web-based library interfaces as well. must be understood within the context of The ease of use and ubiquity of resources a user-centered information environment. such as the generic Google search feature, This type of unfiltered and unedited feed- along with the certainty of results, how- back transforms the determination of the ever, lulls information seekers into a false amount of information needed into a far sense of security that they have found more social activity than it has been in what there is to be found. the past. The social media environment Web 2.0 both exacerbates and mitigates has the effect of collapsing categories this widespread searching behavior ten- within the existing information literacy dency. The ability to find others’ opinions 72 College & Research Libraries January 2011 about information sources, such as the tools and means of access to information book ratings and comments on bookseller are nonhierarchical and always changing. and social networking sites, might deter For example, waiting for tweets to arrive, searchers from finding more authoritative scanning blogs, or reviewing Facebook sources of information, as it also expands postings may be more passive than active the possibilities for locating resources. if the researcher does not take a critical- User comments and star ratings are help- thinking approach to accessing informa- ful markers leading the way to different tion. This requires an understanding of sources of information previously unavail- the information type as well as the inter- able in a scholarly search, but this infor- active formats for acquiring information. mation must be contextualized within a Research in these environments must be larger process that critically evaluates the focused and assertive, allowing the user validity and reliability of all source types, to actively participate in a dialogue with including those that are user-generated. experts and nonexperts, and differentiat- Similarly, tweets and Facebook comments ing between wide-ranging tools as well as are convenient sources of information for formal and informal sources. Social media sharing links to Web sites, citations, and researchers must be aware of the types of freely available scholarly resources, but tools available and how each functions as this information requires the researcher an interactive and participatory resource. to filter through vast amounts of user- generated content that is not always reli- Create a Context for User-generated able or relevant to a particular search. Information The push technology available with many It has become dramatically more difficult online resources adds to the convenience: for information seekers to determine who information will come to the searcher, but is producing the information they are the searcher must develop a critical think- considering and to establish the author’s ing filter to continuously differentiate the expertise than it was prior to the emer- usable from the unusable. If the filter is gence of social technologies. This requires not already present in the medium itself, an increased emphasis on the evaluation the information user must develop one as of information sources and a reframing of part of the search process. how to do so in these new contexts. Wiki- Social media provides multiple point- pedia, for example, challenges our under- ers to excellent sources of information, standing of who produced the information even though some of the information while reinforcing the importance of peer may not be exactly what is needed. review (the community of writers and Blogs and wikis hosted by experts in a editors provide this function in a decen- field provide resources to learn about tered manner). The markers that provided reliable sources of information through clues for researchers in the past—such as the Web. For example, librarians with reputation of a journal or of a book pub- subject expertise have created LibGuides lisher—do not exist for many information and other resources on a range of top- sources currently available. The process ics that constitute the ideal places to of reviewing materials in Wikipedia, for start. In addition, Web sites that provide example, requires the reader to look for scholarly preprints and the comments of other clues, such as the history of postings, other scholars in the field provide useful dates, references, and cross-checking of sources of information as well. The key to resources. If traditional meta-information this activity in a new media environment about a document does exist, it may be is for the information-literate individual disassociated with the content of the ma- to be able to find information using a terial. For instance, information seekers range of media formats. This may be frequently do not see a complete entity especially challenging when the types of (that is, a book or a journal) in a new media Reframing Information Literacy as a Metaliteracy 73 environment, but only discover physically to determine if there is expertise involved discrete elements through their searches, in many social media environments, espe- such as snippets of texts in Google Books cially if there is anonymity, this reinforces (depending on the level of copyright the need to continuously evaluate and ask protection), tags created by users, links questions as part of the research process. to Web resources, wiki author history and dates, bookmarks to resources, and indi- Evaluate Dynamic Content Critically vidual articles pulled up from a database Information seekers in the Web 2.0 envi- or Google Scholar search. In addition, a ronment have easy access to a far broader lack of context occurs through RSS feeds range of materials than researchers in the on Web sites or results returned through past did. They must have the ability to a federated search engine. Because of the synthesize these disparate information nature of disconnected pieces of informa- formats, which is more challenging than tion and shifting contexts, researchers when most academic sources were writ- may not even recognize the importance of ten as texts only, clearly defined as schol- looking for those identifying features that arly, and focused on the same topic. This more experienced searchers rely upon. requires that researchers understand the Information seekers may use factors such visual cues for scholarly materials within as ease of obtaining the full text of an item a digital context (author names or online or the actual image, succinctness of the pseudonyms, date of posting, associa- material, visual presentation and usability, tion logos, organizational strategy, links and other elements that we now consider to resources, and so on), or their ability to locate information. This requires an to amalgamate what they have learned understanding of the materials presented, will be diminished. For example, in the as well as the associated meta-information social networking environment of Twitter, and source type. information seekers must actively pursue As researchers encounter the recom- experts, professionals, and organizations mendations of others, such as comments or associations that continuously tweet or ratings on bookseller Web sites, tweets, about scholarly issues and report on the blog replies, tags, bookmarks, or Facebook changing dynamics of a conference, field postings, they must contextualize this of study, or the medium itself. While this information within a decentered environ- kind of fluid and concise information may ment that connects the professional and not necessarily be scholarly, it may lead in novice and makes accessible both formal the direction of relevant materials that an and informal sources of information. In individual could incorporate into his or this setting, the evaluation of information her search process or frame of reference. is ongoing and must consider the differ- As an active participant in this process, ence between referrals to a wide range today’s information seekers are also able of sources and the information itself. In to use Twitter to post questions about addition, the popular opinion about a information searches, share their own source does not necessarily equal quality, findings, and follow others interested in and the expertise of those commenting the same topics. must be considered. At the same time, Because an individual or group is able a large concentration of positive recom- to create an online forum for expressing mendations to information sources (such opinions that in most cases would have as user-generated book or media reviews been local in the past, today’s informa- or tweets from theorists or professionals tion-literate individual must be able to in a particular field) are useful indicators recognize and appropriately synthesize to move in a certain direction in pursuit conflicting views. Information sources of reliable information sources. Although based on opinion are more prevalent in the information seeker may find it difficult participatory online communities, such 74 College & Research Libraries January 2011 as blogs, Second Life, Twitter, and other pants, critically evaluating the materials Web 2.0 sites. For instance, Facebook and presented, and carefully incorporating LinkedIn provide resources for creating the information into their own learning. online bulletin boards, as well as fan and group pages for professional organiza- Produce Original Content in Multiple tions and associations to interact with Media Formats members and interested participants. This The ACRL Information Literacy Competency requires an understanding of how these Standards identified the importance of us- sites work and how to effectively connect ing information for specific purposes and with others using these tools. It also leads recognized diverse media beyond print to questions about the weight that should including digital texts.70 But this compe- be assigned to each piece of information tency does not fully address the broader presented or discussed in these digital knowledge required for producing dy- spaces. This is not a new approach to namic online content as an individual and information literacy and remains closely in collaboration with others. Producing tied to the evaluation of information, but it original content is especially relevant does assume increased significance today. today with social media formats that al- With the prevalence of online forums low for multiple uses of information that designed for expressing one’s viewpoints are as diverse as the means for accessing in dialogue with others, the informa- and evaluating it. As producers of digital tion seeker must locate the dividing documents, information-literate individu- line between facts and opinions before als must make critical choices about the incorporating these ideas into his or her precise media format to articulate ideas own knowledge. It may not always be and the online site or tool for doing so. easy to identify the difference online, but This may include social networking sites an information-literate researcher must such as Facebook, community-based wi- review this dynamic content critically as kis, blogs such as Blogger or WordPress, part of the evaluation process. It is also microblogs such as Twitter, the virtual important to evaluate the forum itself as world of Second Life, or communications either a formal or informal group and to through mobile applications. The defini- identify whether or not an online discus- tion of what constitutes a document in sion is part of a professional association or these contexts varies considerably, from less clearly defined group of participants collaborative writing in a wiki, to a text- interested in a topic. Other formats now based posting on a blog (with potential commonly found online, such as audio for participant comments), to a brief and video clips, or materials accessed 140-character tweet on Twitter. It may also through the virtual world of Second Life, include the development of an island on also need to be appraised, but the tool kit Second Life (or an uploaded document is not entirely the same as for reviewing in any form to this virtual space), or a print sources. As such, the assessment of digital text or image transferred through these materials must consider the reli- a mobile device. These examples demon- ability of the media site, the authenticity strate a significant expansion of the uses of the materials posted, and the relevance of information that extend beyond print of the user-centered tags and comments. and digital texts that replicate print in Currently, there are few if any scholarly some way through similar organization review outlets for these kinds of emerg- and formatting. Emergent technologies ing media resources. This places further present information in new ways through emphasis on the information seeker to be the fragmentation of ideas, links to re- a critical agent in this process, actively sources, a shifting or transient sense of engaging in these social environments, time and place, and the blurring of lines asking vital questions of other partici- between actual and virtual space, as well Reframing Information Literacy as a Metaliteracy 75 as between text and image. Information- Share Information in Participatory literate individuals must be aware of these Environments fundamental changes in various docu- The ways in which information might ment types and media for the develop- be accessed and shared has increased ment of their own ideas in these settings. exponentially with emerging social technology. In the past, written docu- Understand Personal Privacy, Information ments were perhaps the most frequent Ethics and Intellectual Property Issues tangible forms for sharing information Information literacy was initially con- and were mostly found in the world of ceived as a lifelong learning process that academe and in work settings. In many prepared individuals to be active and cases, these written items only reached engaged citizens. This is especially rel- a very select group of readers. The early evant in social media environments that Web featured static pages and sites that embody a democratic process for making reflected similar formatting of standard contributions in collaboration with oth- text pages and provided hypertext links ers. As individuals express their views to other resources. This did not allow for publicly via social networking and online the kind of dynamic interaction available communities, we must reflect on issues in today’s networked Web environment, of personal privacy, information ethics, where people create documents in mul- and intellectual property. In addition, tiple forms and reach a wide audience information access issues continue to play instantly. Web 2.0 has made it easy to an increasingly prominent role in today’s communicate information and ideas digital society and how or even if we with people worldwide in many forms, communicate online. Information access including video, blogs, tweets, wiki is often mediated by social and economic contributions, social networking posts or considerations that determine the extent comments, and interactions in the virtual to which individuals participate. For world of Second Life. While some formats instance, published articles in traditional may rely solely upon the creator’s research journals and scholarly books are primar- about and knowledge of a topic, and the ily accessible via academic libraries that articulation of ideas through text, others purchase these materials. Initiatives in may require the ability to create graphics, open learning continue to rapidly expand video, audio, or (in the case of Second the scope of freely available resources, but Life) avatars that represent an individual’s this work may not be readily available to virtual identity. Professional expertise the information seeker in an initial search in graphic design, high-quality video or and may require a more complex process audio, computer programming, or even with revised search terms. The proper HyperText Markup Language (HTML) are attribution of sources is also a relevant not as relevant in today’s Web 2.0 environ- concern in these environments but is ment as they were in previous iterations of especially challenging when authorship the Web. Many social media applications is unknown or difficult to determine in are user-friendly, which has contributed open, collaborative environments. An to the rapid expanse of these tools. At the information-literate individual must be same time, however, auxiliary skills that aware of these information surroundings contribute to the successful information and understand the ever-increasing impact in these environments are still essential, that information and emerging technolo- such as the ability to organize, format, gies have on our lives. This requires an and revise the information to be conveyed. ongoing exploration of the legal, economic, This reframing of information literacy political, and social issues that mediate our as a metaliteracy challenges the tradi- access to technology and often define the tional definitions of the term in response types of documents we evaluate and use. to the innovations of social media and 76 College & Research Libraries January 2011 online communities. The purpose of this nologies. These are just a few examples approach is to understand information of the most clearly defined connections production and sharing as central to between information literacy and several participating in these collaborative en- current literacy approaches. As a metalit- vironments. Metaliteracy moves beyond eracy, information literacy provides many an exclusively skills-based approach to foundation elements for literacy categories information and emphasizes collabora- beyond those identified here. tion in the development and distribution In summary, metaliteracy provides a of original content in synchronous and conceptual framework for information asynchronous online environments. literacy that diminishes theoretical dif- ferences, builds practical connections, Conclusion and reinforces central lifelong learning Metaliteracy provides the foundation for goals among different literacy types. media literacy, digital literacy, ICT literacy, Rather than envision these methods as and visual literacy. While information unrelated or disconnected, we see infor- literacy prepares individuals to access, mation literacy as the essential frame- evaluate, and analyze information, met- work that informs and unifies additional aliteracy prepares individuals to actively literacy types. Through this approach, produce and share content through social we recognize the standard information media and online communities. This literacy characteristics (determine, access, requires an understanding of new media evaluate, incorporate, use, understand) tools and original digital information, as integral to related literacy formats. We which is necessary for media literacy, also argue that producing and sharing digital literacy, and ICT literacy. The abil- information are significant activities for ity to evaluate and use visual information lifelong learning in social media environ- is also supported by this approach, not ments and online communities. While only for the appreciation of visual images, the type of information may change from but for the development of new visuals as one format to another (from print, to well. Information literacy supports many Web page, to multimedia file, to learning of the goals of cyberliteracy and informa- object, to collaborative document), the tion fluency. For example, the ability to abilities to determine, access, evaluate, critically evaluate and synthesize Internet incorporate, use, understand, produce, content prepares individuals to be ac- collaborate, and share information are tive participants online, which is central common considerations. Information to cyberliteracy. In addition, the overall itself is constantly variable, and to fully critical-thinking abilities of information gain knowledge about interacting with it literacy create a necessary foundation for as something dynamic and collaborative- information fluency, which allows indi- ly produced requires the ability to adapt viduals to continuously adapt to new tech- to shifting formats.

Notes 1. Craig Gibson, “Information Literacy and IT Fluency: Convergences and Divergences,” Reference & User Services Quarterly 46, no. 3 (2007): 24. 2. American Library Association, Presidential Committee on Information Literacy: Final Report, ¶28 (1989). Available online at www.ala.org/ala/mgrps/divs/acrl/publications/whitepapers/ presidential.cfm. [Accessed 6 July 2009]. 3. Society of College, National and University Libraries, Briefing Paper: Information Skills in Higher Education (1999). Available online at www.sconul.ac.uk/groups/information_literacy/ papers/Seven_pillars2.pdf. [Accessed 6 July 2009]. 4. Ibid., 6. 5. Ibid., 6. Reframing Information Literacy as a Metaliteracy 77

6. Information literacy competency standards for higher education. 2000 Chicago: Association of College & Research Libraries. 7. Society of College, National and University Libraries, Briefing Paper,8. 8. Middle States Commission on Higher Education, Developing Research and Communication Skills: Guidelines for Information Literacy in the Curriculum (Philadelphia: MSCHE, 2003), 11–12. 9. Society of College, National and University Libraries, Briefing Paper, 6. 10. Ibid., 5. 11. Sheila Webber, Society of College, National and University Libraries, The Seven Headline Skills Expanded (2008). Available online at www.sconul.ac.uk/groups/information_literacy/head- line_skills.html. [Accessed 6 July 2009]. 12. Ibid. 13. Information literacy competency standards for higher education. 2000 Chicago: Association of College & Research Libraries. 14. Aspen Institute, Aspen Institute Report of the National Leadership Conference on Media Literacy (1992). Available online at www.medialit.org/reading_room/article582.html. [Accessed 5 August 2009]. 15. Center for Media Literacy, Literacy for the 21st Century: An Overview and Orientation Guide to Media Literacy Education (2008). Available online at http://www.medialit.org/reading-room/literacy- 21st-century-overview-orientation-guide-media-literacy-education. [Accessed 22 November 2010]. 16. Ibid., 22. 17. Ibid., 22. 18. Ibid., 22. 19. American Library Association, Presidential Committee on Information Literacy: Final Report (1989). 20. Paul Gilster, Digital Literacy (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1997): 1. 21. Ibid., 2. 22. Barbara R. Jones-Kavalier and Suzanne L. Flannigan, “Connecting the Digital Dots: Literacy of the 21st Century,” Educause Quarterly 29 (Nov. 2006): 9. Available online at http://net.educause. edu/ir/library/pdf/eqm0621.pdf. [Accessed 6 August 2009]. 23. Ibid., 9. 24. International ICT Literacy Panel, Digital Transformation: A Framework for ICT Literacy (2007). Available online at http://www.ets.org/Media/Tests/Information_and_Communication_Technol- ogy_Literacy/ictreport.pdf. [Accessed 22 November 2010]. 25. Ibid., 18. 26. Ibid., 20. 27. Original definition of visual literacy is available online at the International Visual Literacy Association: www.ivla.org/org_what_vis_lit.htm. [Accessed 6 August 2009]. 28. Jones-Kavalier and Flannigan, “Connecting the Digital Dots,” 9. 29. Ibid., 9. 30. Ibid., 9. 31. Peter Felton, “Visual Literacy,” Change (Nov./Dec. 2008): 60. 32. Ibid., 61. 33. Laura J. Gurak, Cyberliteracy: Navigating the Internet with Awareness (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2001).­ 34. Ibid., 27. 35. Ibid., 28. 36. Evelyn Stiller and Cathie LeBlanc, “From Computer Literacy to Cyber-Literacy,” Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges 21, no. 6 (June 2006): 4–13. 37. Ibid., 6. 38. Ibid., 6. 39. Ibid., 6. 40. Committee on Information Technology Literacy, Being Fluent with Information Technology (1999). Available online at www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=6482. [Accessed 7 August 2009]. 41. Ibid., 49. 42. Ibid. 43. Ibid. 44. Information literacy competency standards for higher education. 2000 Chicago: Association of College & Research Libraries. 45. James Elmborg, “Critical Information Literacy: Implications for Instructional Practice,” Journal of Academic Librarianship 32 (Feb. 2006): 192–99. 46. Troy A. Swanson, “A Radical Step: Implementing a Critical Information Literacy Model,” portal: Libraries and the Academy 4, no. 2 (Apr. 2004): 259–73. 47. James W. Marcum, “Rethinking Information Literacy,” Library Quarterly 72 (Jan. 2002): 1–26. 48. Ibid., 20. 49. Christine Pawley, “Information Literacy: A Contradictory Coupling,” Library Quarterly 73 78 College & Research Libraries January 2011

(2003): 422–52. 50. Ibid., 445. 51. John Buschman, “Information Literacy, ‘New’ Literacies, and Literacy,” Library Quarterly 79 (Jan. 2009): 95–118. 52. Ibid., 110. 53. Ibid., 111. 54. Ibid., 112. 55. Kara Jones, “Connecting Social Technologies with Information Literacy,” Journal of Web Librarianship 1, no.4 (2007): 67–80. 56. Ibid., 76. 57. Ibid., 77. 58. Gibson, “Information Literacy,” 23–59. 59. Ibid., 59. 60. Ibid., 59. 61. Kimmo Tuominen, “Information Literacy 2.0,” Signum 5 (2007): 6–12. 62. Ibid., 7. 63. Ibid., 12. 64. Sue Thomas et al, “Transliteracy: Crossing Divides,” First Monday 12 (Dec. 2007). Available online at www.uic.edu/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2060/1908. [Accessed 30 December 2009]. 65. Renee Hobbs, “Media Literacy, General Semantics, and K-12 Education,” ETC: A Review of General Semantics 61 (2004): 24–28. 66. Ibid., 27. 67. Ibid., 27. 68. Renee Hobbs, “Measuring the Acquisition of Media Literacy Skills,” Reading Research Quarterly 38, no. 3 (July/Aug./Sept. 2003): 351. 69. Ibid., 351. 70. Information literacy competency standards for higher education. 2000 Chicago: Association of College & Research Libraries.

Recommended by Choice To order visit www.aphabookstore.org APHAPRESS

Confronting Violence: Disability and Public Health Case Studies in Public Chronic Disease Epidemiology Answers to Questions About the Health Ethics, Second Edition and Control, Third Edition Edited by Charles E. Drum, MPA, Epidemic Destroying America’s JD, PhD; Gloria L. Krahn, PhD, Steven S. Coughlin, PhD Edited by Patrick L. Remington, MD, Homes and Communities MPH; and Hank Bersani Jr., PhD MPH; Ross C. Brownson, PhD; Mark V. Third Edition 2009 , 182 pp., softcover ISBN 978-087553-194-6 Wegner, MD, MPH 2009, 212 pp., softcover By George A. Gellert, MD, MPH, $35 List Price 2010, 659 pp., softcover ISBN 978-0-87553-191-5 MPA, FABPM ISBN 9780875531922 $50 List Price 2010, 439 pp., softcover $70 List price ISBN 9780875531960 $70 List price