Establishing information literacy principles as a foundation for cross-curricular scholarly investigation in England

Abstract

A fundamental problem with the educational system in the United Kingdom is that the subject-based emphasis of the curriculum leads to a separation in the teaching and learning of related skills. Using a framework previously prepared by the author, which positions Information Literacy within the wider domain of scholarly investigation, this paper employs a meta-synthesis approach to construct a meta-model that unites much of the material currently dispersed across England’s National Curriculum, and draws on the totality of the assembled content to outline a series of generic skills. The structure proposed here enables teachers to make connections between key aspects of what they cover in their own subjects and those addressed by colleagues concerned with other disciplines, and helps information professionals to recognize areas where their particular interventions will be most beneficial, in terms of promoting Information Literacy specifically and skills of more direct interest to subject practitioners.

Keywords

education information literacy scholarly investigation schools England

The problem

Back in the mid-1970s, when much information skills teaching in United Kingdom schools tended to consist of little more than library ‘user education’ or ‘bibliographic instruction’, Lindsay (1976) lamented the problem that the “administrative separation” of subjects which was characteristic of teaching in the secondary phase could all too easily lead to unintended forms of “conceptual separation” in the eyes of pupils (p. 20). In particular, he highlighted how youngsters who had been taught their library skills in English lessons may struggle to apply them in the context of, for example, social science work.

Lindsay’s observation is indicative of the fragmentation of knowledge and skills at a wider level that remains prevalent in secondary schools. In discussing what he terms “the subject ghetto”, Kelley (2008) argues that segregation resulting from a preoccupation with subjects is exhibited by the institutions, teachers, textbooks and examinations that constitute of the educational system (p. 31), and the independent coverage of fundamentally similar skills is an inevitable further consequence. It is an indication of the British government’s awareness of this danger that National Curriculum documentation makes some attempt to encourage teachers to think beyond their particular discipline by offering cross references that link the content addressed in one subject with related areas addressed in others. Fragmentation is less of an issue at primary level than at secondary, since much of the children’s educational experience in school is managed by a single individual who is responsible for teaching and learning in a range of curriculum areas, many of which have traditionally been united in cross-disciplinary theme lessons.

Related work

This paper offers a framework for understanding how some of the concepts and practices associated with Information Literacy (IL) may be integrated into mainstream teaching in schools. In order to present a measure of background, the literature review will explore the relevant links that writers on IL have already forged in terms of the teaching of the skills. Essentially, there are four dimensions that are in evidence:

the making of connections across different IL models

the framing of IL against other modern-day ‘literacies’

a perspective that sees IL alongside other broad forms of scholarly investigation

attempts to understand IL in terms of its relationship to the teaching of other, predominantly subject-based skills in schools.

Each of these dimensions will be addressed in the paragraphs that follow.

The last 30 years have seen the appearance of a great number of IL frameworks and there have been numerous efforts to compare their contents. In the mid-1990s, Herring (1996) drew attention to the high degree of “overlap between the range of information skills outlines” (p. 17), and to how “different researchers have produced similar but different lists or classifications of skills” (p. 25). Much more recently, Bawden and Robinson (2009) have detected an overall pattern:

“the most commonly used and cited models of information literacy… involve some variation on linear stages of ‘recognising a need for information – choosing the best sources – accessing information – evaluating information – organising and storing information – communicating and using information” (p. 187).

Several writers have identified highly specific similarities in relation to named frameworks. In their “comparison of information skills process models”, Eisenberg and Brown (1992) emphasized their commonalities by arranging, side-by-side, the individual elements within four of the major frameworks and, just a few years later, Young (1999) used a similar approach to show how certain phases within three of the leading models were basically counterparts of each other. We can conclude, from the totality of this work, that a consensus has emerged with regard to what constitutes the key IL skills.

Whilst the comparisons made by writers such as Eisenberg and Brown (1992) and Young (1999) are likely to be of most interest to information professionals and LIS academics, work that has sought to apply IL models to wider subjects offers more appeal to teachers in schools. Eisenberg, Lowe and Spitzer (2004) consider the implications of the Big6 approach for the teaching of Information and Communications Technology (ICT), thereby helping to create firmer links between IL and Computer Literacy. This congruence is consistent with the wider principle that “the computer is a tool that facilitates and extends our abilities to learn and to process information” (Eisenberg, Lowe and Spitzer 2004: 8). The IL framework offered by the Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals (CILIP) subsumes many areas of ICT competence within its skills breakdown. In discussing the stage of understanding how to work with or exploit results, for example, CILIP notes the importance of employing appropriate software, and understanding how to manage one’s findings is deemed to embrace skills associated with the use of folders to organize computer-stored data, the treatment of emails and email attachments and the tracking of changes in documents (Abell et al 2005). Eisenberg, Lowe and Spitzer (2004) discuss IL alongside various other literacies, of which Computer Literacy is one, and assert that, through IL, the other literacies, which include visual, media and network, as well as computer, can be achieved. A similar argument is advanced by Mackey and Jacobson (2011), who present IL as an overarching “metaliteracy” that “unifies additional literacy types” (p. 76).

Although few attempts have been made to relate existing IL frameworks to the teaching of a range of subjects, the foundations of such an approach have been laid by Shenton (2009), who postulates that certain forms of scholarly investigation (specifically original research involving the collection and analysis of new data, scientific enquiry and finding and using existing information) share common characteristics and, as in the papers of Eisenberg and Brown (1992) and Young (1999), component-to-component mapping can be employed to demonstrate the essential equivalence of their major elements. In later work, Shenton has moved closer to the development of an overall meta-model by defining six broad stages found in all three modes of investigation:

initiate enquiry

plan action to follow

implement; acquire material for scrutiny

construct meaning

record for others

consider and assess.

(Shenton and Hay-Gibson, 2012).

If we accept that certain forms of scholarly investigation do indeed share a common basis, it follows that instruction and practice within one subject at school can not only be used to reinforce teaching points that have been made in other areas but can also contribute to students’ more general understanding of the underlying principles and, in particular, demonstrate the wide range of their application. These links are often missed by pupils who are educated through learning programmes that deal in discrete subjects, as is especially the case in the secondary phase in Britain.

The purpose of this paper, then, lies in exploring the ways in which the six stages of investigation identified by Shenton and Hay-Gibson (2012) emerge across a variety of National Curriculum subjects. The analysis bears some comparison with work undertaken many years ago by the Library Association (1991), in that this body has also shown how the same generic scholarly processes are evident in fields as seemingly disparate as Mathematics, Science, English and Technology. As Table 1 demonstrates, the correspondence of the skills highlighted by the Library Association and those defined by Shenton and Hay-Gibson is considerable. Parallels can also be drawn between the Library Association framework and the Colvin-Keene Model of IL since there, too, the authors have mapped IL processes against an existing learning framework – in that case Bloom’s well established Taxonomy of Educational Objectives (Keene, Colvin and Sissons, 2010). Early attempts to move IL teaching beyond old style ‘user education’ and position it within the wider educational mission of the school had been much less ambitious – frequently they took the form of addressing certain key areas as part of an often fragmentary ‘study skills’ programme. Lincoln (1987) reports how a “library use” element might be found within a sequence of sessions that might also tackle note-taking and essay writing, for example (p. 8). A similar picture is presented by Tabberer and Allman (1984), who comment that, at their time of writing, in general

Table 1.

Relationship between generic phases of scholarly investigation defined by Shenton and Hay-Gibson (2012) and learning skills noted by the Library Association (1991).

Stages in the Shenton and Hay-Gibson (2012) framework	Learning skills identified by the Library Association (1991)
Initiate enquiry	Planning
Plan action to follow	Planning
Implement; acquire material for scrutiny	Locating and gathering Selecting and appraising
Construct meaning	Organizing and recording
Record for others	Communicating and realizing
Consider and assess	Evaluating

“study skills provision has included such items as planning and organizing one’s time and work, using a library, strategies for reading, remembering, taking notes, preparing and writing essays, interpreting and preparing tables and diagrams, and revising for and taking examinations” (p. 3).

It should be appreciated that the true territory of the Library Association document is that of ‘learning skills’, rather than IL specifically. Unfortunately, its value has diminished very significantly during the last 20 years. In particular, its references to National Curriculum attainment targets and levels have become increasingly irrelevant over time, as one set of orders has been replaced by another. Indeed, when the document was written, the National Curriculum was still in its infancy and it may surprise readers to learn that IT as a discrete entity was addressed only as the final attainment target within the National Curriculum for Technology, i.e. as AT5, Information Technology Capability. The four preceding attainment targets covered Design Technology (Higgins 1995).

The Library Association’s work in the early 1990s led the author to realize that the principles discussed in his previous papers (in particular Shenton, 2009 and Shenton and Hay-Gibson, 2012) could be taken to another, more subject-specific level, with the result that it might be possible to create a tool that enables senior managers in schools to make strategic, cross-disciplinary provision for the teaching of the various principles in which academic investigation is rooted. Such a tool would also allow information professionals to ascertain where, in relation to the National Curriculum, they can direct their efforts in giving IL a higher profile within schools by coupling instruction in their own area to the day-to-day territories of subject practitioners as well as helping to contribute to the development of skills more closely associated with the various disciplines involved. Fosmire (2012), in looking to extend IL’s relevance, suggests that information professionals may aim to translate the language of IL into that of other disciplines; his particular field of interest is that of engineering education but his central point is equally appropriate in relation to the teaching of National Curriculum subjects in schools. Fosmire’s more ambitious aspiration, namely that IL may “inform the pedagogy” of subject teachers (p. 47), is less easy to realize in a school setting, given that there are very clear differences between the paradigms and practices of information science on the one hand and education on the other (Shenton, 2011).

Comparisons can be drawn between the aim of this paper and the concept of “consilience”, as discussed by E.O. Wilson. Elaborating on the notion, Wilson (1998) explains how “consilience” refers to a “jumping together” of knowledge (p. 6). Yet, whereas Wilson is concerned with “the linking of facts and fact-based theory across disciplines to create a common groundwork of explanation” (p. 6), in this paper the author seeks to highlight the key principles that underpin skills that have been seen to pertain to investigative activities which are known to emerge in different subject disciplines.

Study issues

The work leading to the writing of this paper began from the premise that the six generic actions which are integral to investigative scholarly activity and have been outlined previously by the author (Shenton and Hay-Gibson, 2012) may provide a useful framework for uniting forms of enquiry that emerge in the National Curriculum for individual subjects. In order to ascertain the viability of this principle, the author explored the following questions.

Is the language employed in the 2012 paper appropriate for transfer to a National Curriculum context?

If it is found to be unsuitable, is it possible to make minor linguistic modifications or should a different set of stages be constructed, perhaps similar to those proposed by the Library Association (1991)?

What subjects, in particular, should be featured in the framework?

Methodology

Work to create the new model took the form of a meta-synthesis. This term is used here in a sense very similar to that in which it is employed by Derakhshan and Singh 2011). These authors define a meta-synthesis as “a method of mixing a group of studies in order to find out the common essence in the data and translate that into a new understanding” (p. 219). Only slight adjustment of Derakhshan and Singh’s language is needed in order to provide the reader with an accurate understanding of the project whose outcome forms the subject of this paper. Instead of “mixing a group of studies”, the author pooled the material relating to the National Curriculum for a range of subjects.

There is, however, some divergence of opinion as to what constitutes a meta-synthesis. Lee (2010) explains how it may involve “the development of an explanatory theory or model that may explain the findings of a group of similar… studies” (p. 221). Again, it must be stressed that there are no ‘studies’ as such scrutinized here and there has been no effort to evolve a theory of the kind envisaged by the authors. Nevertheless, Lee (2010) also points to the need to “maintain the unique features of individual studies” whilst still appreciating “how various study results are related to each other” (p. 221). These contrasting prerequisites can be understood in terms of the analysis presented in this paper. The individual references to the National Curriculum for the different subjects give insight into the unique particulars that relate to each area, and the overall stages present the broader, higher level constructs that unite them.

The meta-synthesis consisted of seven phases.

Framing the study, i.e. determining the questions that would guide the enquiry and the specific framework to be explored.

Locating the material, i.e. accessing the National Curriculum documentation from the Department for Education website (i.e. http://www.education.gov.uk/schools/teachingandlearning/curriculum).

Identifying common themes, i.e. combing the documentation so as to determine the potential of the intended framework in offering a way of unifying related, although scattered, material.

Assembling a meta-model, i.e. bringing together the appropriate National Curriculum content within overall headings, ensuring that each intended label is suitable and creating sub-categories where necessary.

Verifying coherence, i.e. ensuring that there is a clear consistency in the National Curriculum material cited within each of the six categories and no dispersal of this content across the different groups.

Communicating and explicating, i.e. presenting the model through tables and via a complementary textual commentary.

Contextualizing in terms of Information Literacy and Information Behaviour (IB), i.e. highlighting relevant ideas from these areas of information science in order to illuminate particular similarities and differences in emphasis between IL/IB and forms of scholarly investigation that are apparent in the National Curriculum.

The outcome of the meta-synthesis may be thought of as a meta-model of the type two variety that has been defined by Shenton and Hay-Gibson (2012). The authors explain how a structure of this kind “affords a framework that has been distilled from a group of related models and, through the use, where necessary, of higher level concepts, effectively summarizes their key messages. Common features are generalized in such a way that the meta-model accommodates the pattern represented in each” (p. 99).

Suitability of the Shenton and Hay-Gibson framework

Overall, the framework previously presented by Shenton and Hay-Gibson (2012) was found to reflect satisfactorily the generic components within the National Curriculum relevant to scholarly investigation. Readers will, however, be able to determine for themselves the soundness of the fit between the labels and the subject-specific processes by examining Tables 2 to 7. Only two significant changes were made.

Table 2.

National Curriculum content relating to Stage One (initiate enquiry).

Key Stage One Ask questions (Science) Ask geographical questions (Geography) Ask questions about the past (History) Approach problems involving number, and data presented in a variety of forms, in order to identify what needs to be done (Mathematics)	Key Stage Two Ask questions (History) Ask geographical questions (Geography) Ask questions that can be investigated scientifically (Science)
Key Stage Three Ask questions (MFL) Identify specific historical questions or issues (History) Ask geographical questions, thinking critically, constructively and creatively (Geography) Reflect critically on historical questions or issues (History)	Key Stage Four Question scientific information or ideas (Science) Question ideas, opinions, assumptions, beliefs and values (Citizenship) Identify the mathematical elements of a situation or problem (Mathematics) Simplify a situation or problem in order to represent it mathematically (Mathematics)

Table 3.

National Curriculum content relating to Stage Two (plan action to follow).

Key Stage One Plan own writing (English) Decide how answers might be found to own questions (Science) Plan by suggesting what to do next as own ideas develop (Design and Technology) Develop flexible approaches to problem solving (Mathematics) Make decisions about which operations and problem-solving strategies to use (Mathematics)

Key Stage Two Decide how answers can be found to questions that can be investigated scientifically and what sources will be used (Science) Generate ideas for products, putting together a list of what the design is to achieve; plan what is to be done (Design and Technology) Break down a more complex problem or calculation into simpler steps (Mathematics) Find different ways of approaching a problem (Mathematics) Identify data necessary to solve a given problem (Mathematics) Talk about what information is needed and how it can be found and used (ICT)

Key Stage Three Plan geographical enquiries (Geography) Plan practical and investigative activities (Science) Plan enquiries into issues and problems (Citizenship) Plan and organize activities (Design and Technology) Respond creatively to briefs, developing proposals and specifications (Design and Technology) Work logically towards results and solutions (Mathematics) Appreciate that there are a number of different techniques that can be used to analyse a situation (Mathematics) Consider systematically the information needed to solve a problem, complete a task or answer a question (ICT)

Key Stage Four Plan to test a scientific idea, answer a scientific question or solve a scientific problem (Science) Plan action to address citizenship issues (Citizenship) Compare and evaluate representations of a situation before making a choice (Mathematics) Identify a range of techniques that could be used to tackle a problem (Mathematics) Analyse systematically the information requirements to solve a range of problems (ICT)

Table 4.

National Curriculum content relating to Stage Three (implement; acquire material for scrutiny).

Key Stage One Find out about the past from a range of sources of information (History) Gather information from a variety of sources (ICT) Use print and ICT-based information texts (English) Use secondary sources of information (Geography) Observe and record (Geography) Make and record observations and measurements (Science) Use first-hand experience and simple information sources to answer questions (Science) Use reference material for different purposes (English) Read; use knowledge of book conventions (English) Use organisational features of non-fiction texts to find information (English)

Key Stage Two Find information and advice (Citizenship) Work with a range of information (ICT) Work with others to explore a variety of information sources (ICT) Find out about events, people and changes from an appropriate range of sources (History) Use secondary sources of information (Geography) Select suitable sources and find information (ICT) Use appropriate fieldwork techniques (Geography) Make systematic observations and measurements (Science) Collect and record evidence (Geography) Use atlases and globes (Geography) Select information (History) Engage with challenging and demanding subject matter (English) Choose material that is relevant to the topic and to the listeners (English) Scan, skim, obtain specific information and draw on different features of texts when reading (English) Exploit organizational features and systems to find information (English)

Key Stage Three Use a range of scientific methods and techniques (Science) Use a range of information and sources (Citizenship) Explore sources of information about work and enterprise (PSHE) Identify, select and use a range of historical sources (History) Use a variety of information sources to explore options and choices in career and financial contexts (PSHE) Engage with someone else’s mathematical reasoning (Mathematics) Use reference materials appropriately and effectively (MFL) Obtain and record data from a range of primary and secondary sources (Science) Select mathematical information to use (Mathematics) Collect and enter qualitative and quantitative information (ICT) Collect and record information (Geography) Use atlases, globes, maps at a range of scales, photographs, satellite images and other geographical data (Geography) Use and refine search methods (ICT)

Key Stage Four Use a range of information and sources (Citizenship) Collect data from primary or secondary sources (Science) Identify and select a range of information sources to research (PSHE) Find information, advice and support from a variety of sources (PSHE) Select mathematical information to use (Mathematics) Select appropriate information from a wide range of sources (ICT) Collect scientific data (Science)

Table 5.

National Curriculum content relating to Stage Four (construct meaning)

Key Stage One	Key Stage Two
As a formative process Explore experience (English) Organize own work (Mathematics) Assemble and develop ideas on paper and on screen (English)	As a formative process Develop and refine ideas by bringing together, organising and reorganizing material (ICT) Use ICT to help in geographical investigations (Geography)
From raw material Use simple lists, tables and charts to sort, classify and organize information (Mathematics) Organize and explain information (English)	From raw material Interpret tables, lists and charts used in everyday life (Mathematics) Use statistics and graphs (Mathematics) Use observations, measurements or other data (Science) Classify information (ICT) Interpret information (ICT) Organize information (History) Identify the gist of an account or key points (English)
Use of prior/wider knowledge Make simple comparisons and identify simple patterns or associations (Science) Compare what happened with what they expected to happen, and try to explain it (Science)	Use of prior/wider knowledge Make comparisons and identify simple patterns or associations (Science) Use scientific knowledge and understanding to explain (Science)
For creation of subject-related outcomes Answer questions about the past (History) Make observations about where things are located (Geography) Recognize changes in physical and human features (Geography)	For creation of subject-related outcomes Answer questions (History) Identify and explain different views (Geography)
	Evaluation Check information for accuracy and relevance (ICT) Review the work of others (Science) Consider an argument critically (English)
Key Stage Three	Key Stage Four
As a formative process Generate and harness new ideas (English) From raw material Analyse data from a range of primary and secondary sources (Science) Engage with and reflect on different ideas, opinions, beliefs and values; use a range of information and sources (Citizenship) Look at data to find patterns and exceptions (Mathematics) Explain results (Mathematics) Analyse information (ICT) Sift, summarize and use the most important points within content (English) Extract and interpret information; infer and deduce meanings; select and compare information from different texts (English) Recognize and discuss different interpretations of texts (English) Summarize and take notes (English) Listen for gist or detail (MFL) Skim and scan written texts (MFL)	From raw material Analyse scientific data (Science) Analyse and interpret scientific information (Science) Look at data to find patterns and exceptions (Mathematics) Interpret data so as to provide evidence to test ideas and develop theories (Science) Make sense of someone else’s findings (Mathematics) Explore, develop and interpret information (ICT) Listen to complex information and respond critically, constructively and cogently (English) Analyse information and ideas from texts (English) Select, compare, summarize and synthesize information from different texts (English) Develop and sustain independent interpretations of what has been read (English) Summarize and take notes (English)
Use of prior/wider knowledge Make connections within Mathematics; use knowledge of related patterns (Mathematics)	Use of prior/wider knowledge Make connections within Mathematics; use knowledge of related problems (Mathematics) Give examples of similar contexts previously encountered (Mathematics)
For creation of subject-related outcomes Identify and classify patterns (Mathematics) Make and begin to justify conjectures and generalizations (Mathematics) Form convincing arguments based on findings (Mathematics) Develop logical arguments (English) Form own view (English)	For creation of subject-related outcomes Identify and classify patterns; make and justify conjectures and generalizations (Mathematics) Form convincing arguments to justify findings and general statements (Mathematics) Develop an argument and draw a conclusion (Science) Explain own viewpoint and draw conclusions (Citizenship) Present a convincing argument (Citizenship) Use knowledge and understanding to make informed choices (PSHE)
Evaluation Evaluate information (ICT) Evaluate evidence (Geography) Evaluate the sources used in order to reach reasoned conclusions (History) Analyse and evaluate sources used (Citizenship) Be aware of the strength of empirical evidence (Mathematics) Assess the usefulness of texts, sift the relevant from the irrelevant (English) Identify bias, opinion and abuse of evidence in sources (Geography) Recognize bias and inaccuracies in information (PSHE)	Evaluation Evaluate information and ideas from texts (English) Evaluate different viewpoints and ideas (Citizenship) Evaluate information, advice and support from a variety of sources (PSHE) Critically evaluate and justify information choices (ICT) Analyse critically sources used (Citizenship) Appreciate the strength of empirical evidence (Mathematics) Judge the value, accuracy, plausibility and bias of information (ICT) Recognize bias in sources (Citizenship) Recognize bias and inaccuracies in information (PSHE)

Table 6.

National Curriculum content relating to Stage Five (communicate to others).

Key Stage One Present completed work effectively (ICT) Present results in an organized way (Mathematics) Use mathematical communication and explanation skills (Mathematics) Share ideas by presenting information in a variety of forms (ICT) Select from own knowledge of history and communicate it in a variety of ways (History) Communicate in different ways (Geography) Communicate results in a variety of ways (Science) Communicate ideas using a variety of methods (Design and Technology) Communicate in spoken, pictorial and written form (Mathematics) Make maps and plans (Geography) Use correct language, symbols and vocabulary (Mathematics)

Key Stage Two Record information (History) Recall and re-present important features of an argument, talk, reading, radio, television programme or film (English) Share and exchange information (ICT) Communicate one’s knowledge and understanding of history in a variety of ways (History) Use a wide range of methods to communicate data in an appropriate and systematic manner (Science) When composing text, choose form and content suitable for the purpose (English) Decide how best to organize and present findings (Mathematics) Communicate in ways appropriate to the task and audience (Geography) Present to different audiences (English) Be sensitive to the needs of the others and think carefully about the content and quality when communicating information (ICT) Use appropriate language and style when writing (English) Use features of layout, presentation and organization effectively when writing (English) Communicate mathematically (Mathematics) Use precise mathematical language and vocabulary (Mathematics)

Key Stage Three Communicate information effectively, safely and responsibly (ICT) Display information (Geography) Record methods, solutions and conclusions (Mathematics) Communicate findings effectively (Mathematics) Communicate one’s knowledge and understanding of history in a variety of ways (History) Use appropriate methods to communicate scientific information (Science) Present and organize accounts and explanations about the past that are coherent, structured and substantiated (History) Engage an audience (English) Present information and points of view clearly and appropriately in different contexts (English) Use a range of ICT tools to present information in forms that are fit for purpose, meet audience needs and suit the content (ICT) Bring together, draft and refine information (ICT) Use planning, drafting, editing, proofreading and self-evaluation to shape and craft writing (English) Construct maps and plans at a variety of scales (Geography) Make accurate mathematical diagrams, graphs and constructions (Mathematics) Communicate knowledge and understanding using geographical vocabulary (Geography) Use technical terms appropriately and correctly (ICT)

Key Stage Four Communicate and exchange information safely, responsibly and securely (ICT) Use a range of ICT tools and media to share, exchange and present information effectively (ICT) Present information (Science) Record methods, results and conclusions (Mathematics) Engage in mathematical discussion of results (Mathematics) Use a range of forms to communicate to different audiences (Mathematics) Present information clearly and persuasively to others (English) Present information on complex subjects concisely, logically and persuasively (English) Establish and sustain a consistent point of view in non-fiction writing (English) Support own views by incorporating different kinds of evidence (English) Make accurate mathematical diagrams, graphs and constructions (Mathematics)

Table 7.

National Curriculum content relating to Stage Six (consider and assess).

Key Stage One Check own work (Mathematics) Discuss what has been done (Mathematics) Review own work and explain to others what was done (Science) Review own writing, discussing quality of what is written (English) Review what one has done to help with idea development (ICT) Talk about what might be changed in future work (ICT) Identify what could have been done differently or how own work could be improved in the future (Design and Technology)

Key Stage Two Review what one has done (ICT) Review own work (Science) Check results and ensure that solutions are reasonable (Mathematics) Discuss and evaluate own writing (English) Describe and talk about the effectiveness of own work (ICT) Talk about how future work could be improved (ICT) Reflect on progress of own work during design and make stages, identifying how product could be improved (Design and Technology)

Key Stage Three Consider the effectiveness of alternative strategies (Mathematics) Consider the elegance and efficiency of alternative solutions (Mathematics) Reflect on own use of ICT (ICT) Review, modify and evaluate own work (ICT) Reflect critically when evaluating and modifying own ideas (Design and Technology) Redraft writing to improve accuracy and quality (MFL) Proofread and self-evaluate to shape and craft writing (English) Reflect on what has been learnt and use these insights to improve future work (ICT) Take account of feedback and learn from mistakes (Mathematics)

Key Stage Four Consider the elegance and efficiency of alternative solutions (Mathematics) Reflect and comment critically on own performance (English) Check working (Mathematics) Evaluate data collection methods (Science) Review, modify and evaluate work (ICT) Use planning, drafting, editing, proof-reading and self-evaluation to revise and craft own writing (English) Act on feedback from others (ICT) Take account of feedback and learn from mistakes (Mathematics)

The scope of the fourth stage, devoted to the construction of meaning, was widened to encompass the evaluation of material; this area had originally been felt to lie within the previous phase, which deals with the acquisition of material.

It was decided that the penultimate phase, which the authors had termed “record for others”, should be widened to “communicate to others”, since this allowed the inclusion of oral methods that lie beyond “recording”. The broadening is consistent with the author’s earlier work relating to the nature of information (Shenton 2004a). Here he notes how Wersig and Neveling (1975) suggest that information may be defined as “recorded knowledge” (p. 136), although, in looking to operationalize the concept of information for research into IB, the author himself prefers to emphasize that the messages involved can be communicated, without necessarily being recorded.

Consideration was also given to extending the third stage so as to embrace not only the acquisition of data/information but also processes associated with mathematical calculation since both effectively lead to the possession of material that is integral to the development of a response to the situation that gave rise to the investigative activity. Ultimately, the possibility of such refinement was rejected as it would have meant expanding the category specifically to include processes relating to one particular subject and the shift was felt to take the territory too far from what was originally intended. Moreover, there would be a danger that the revised label would have to be so bland that it would fail to offer any real insight into the scope of the category.

The tables

By bringing together material from different subjects within panes featuring content from the same key stage, the tables enable the reader to gain an overall picture of the type of requirements, in relation to the area in question, that are demanded by the National Curriculum overall. Moreover, by arranging, within a single table, all the appropriate material relating to a particular strand, features of continuity and progression become apparent. The subject-related text within the tables adheres as closely as possible to the words of the National Curriculum itself. In all, material is taken from as many as 10 different subjects: English, Mathematics, Science, Design and Technology, Geography, History, Information and Communications Technology (ICT), Modern Foreign Languages (MFL), Citizenship and Personal, Social and Health Education (PSHE).

The commentary

Whilst the analysis that led to the creation of this paper concentrated largely on individual skills which pertain to the various stages of independent investigation, it should be appreciated from the outset that, on several occasions, the National Curriculum documentation refers to broad processes that cut across all six phases. These include those of “research”, “investigating”/carrying out “investigative activities”, problem solving and “critical thinking”. As these terms have wide-ranging implications, it was felt inappropriate to cover them in the individual tables that are presented here.

1. Initiate enquiry (Table 2)

Within the National Curriculum documentation, easily the most frequently stated means of stimulating an investigation is the process of asking questions. Still, the drivers that prompt this action are varied – learners may, for example, be acting on their natural curiosity and personal observations, reflecting on what they have read or been told or responding in a more spontaneous manner to a particular argument advanced by a commentator. The precipitator for an enquiry need not necessarily be a question, however. An individual may be keen to address an issue or focused topic that relates in some way to the overall subject or look to understand a matter in terms which are relevant to that curriculum area. In these instances, there may be no question as such at all.

Much of the literature on IL recommends that learners devise questions for investigation at the beginning of a study (see, for example, National Council for Educational Technology 1993; Doyle 1994; Ryan and Capra 2001). Congdon (1978) advocates a hierarchical approach, with a series of “little questions” first being formulated before an overall “big question” is devised. Undoubtedly, a key challenge would seem to be that of framing a question or set of questions that are not only appropriate to the curriculum area involved but are suitable for investigation, too. It is clearly difficult for young enquirers, especially, to construct, entirely of their own volition, viable questions. Gross (2006), in acknowledging that formulating as well as responding to questions represents a “complex achievement”, notes how success is determined by factors as diverse as “language development, socialization and culture and… understanding of logical structures” (p. 42). Nevertheless, the typology offered by Farmer (2007), who suggests that questions for investigation may relate to “clarification”, “understanding”, “evaluation” or “confirmation” (p. 41), would appear to afford a helpful guiding framework for teachers intent on facilitating pupil thinking. For some experts on research, the stage of question formulation is one of the most crucial in the whole of the investigative process. Yin (1994), a noted authority on case studies, goes so far as to argue that the nature of the question asked directly determines the type of research strategy adopted. For Wray and Lewis (1995), however, instead of generating questions, a more productive approach for school pupils may lie in creating a statement which defines the area for investigation and specifies what will be done with the information once it has been found.

2. Plan action to follow (Table 3)

Very often, consideration of the steps to be taken after the formulation of a question or identification of an issue for scrutiny will arise naturally from what has been done in the preceding stage. After all, having effectively formalized the need to find out, a logical follow-up lies in determining what must then be done in order to satisfy that need. In National Curriculum terms, planning may necessitate conceiving the action to be taken and breaking it down into stages, identifying several alternative approaches or giving particular thought to a certain aspect, such as the acquisition of data or some other kind of material. The course of action determined by the pupils may be influenced by advice offered by the teacher at this stage, which may include, for example, the need to adopt a problem-solving mindset.

In an IL or IB context, ‘planning’ typically includes preparing a search strategy which may begin with giving thought to the sources that will be consulted and from where they might be obtained. The planning activities that are evident within the Big6 skills approach developed by Eisenberg and Berkowitz (2003) include determining the range of possible sources and the identification of those that might be considered priorities. These dimensions may be considered to form part of what the author, in a previous paper, has termed the “where/what” of information-seeking (Shenton 2004b: 244). Learners should also give thought to the addressing the ‘how’, i.e. the specific tactics to be employed when exploiting the identified sources. Preparation for tackling the ‘how’ may start with identifying keywords that will be employed when interacting with a search engine or library catalogue, or when consulting a back-of-the-book index. As Irving (1985) recognizes, such terms may emerge from the assignment brief and the pupils’ existing knowledge.

3. Implement; acquire material for scrutiny (Table 4)

‘Implementing’ is here regarded as beginning to put into effect the action plan determined by the learner, especially through the gaining of material with which the individual can then work. The types of material that the National Curriculum recommends should be utilized by pupils are diverse and range from personally collected data, such as observations and measurements recorded by the individual, to well established reference tools, like globes and atlases in a geographical context. A recurrent theme is that the sources of information which are employed should be varied. It is also established that particular techniques should be applied when using the materials. These include the exploitation of “organisational features”, which may be assumed to embrace bibliographical tools such as contents lists and back-of-the-book indexes, and, once appropriate material has been located, higher order reading skills.

Some of the more detailed IL models advocate that learners put into practice advanced reading skills similar to those championed in the National Curriculum for English. Marland (1981), for example, draws attention to “scanning for facts, skimming for information and meaning” when “interrogating resources” (p. 33) and, in exploring the “science of library and book skills”, Coles, Shepherd and White (1982) point to how the SQ3R model promotes reading strategies “with an active mental involvement” (pp. 200, 201). Another framework is provided by Tibbitts (1992). She outlines how the reader may scan, skim or undertake receptive or reflective reading depending on their purpose. These actions can be seen as the culmination of an increasingly focused pursuit in which attention is gradually shifted from the identification of potentially useful environments and materials to the combing of the material within, often after appropriate parts have been identified through finding aids that permit what Shenton and Dixon (2003) term “selective access” (p. 60).

The documentation for Key Stage Two Science treats first-hand experience as a source of information that may be used to answer questions. Whilst information scientists may feel that such a stance points to a clear difference between the nature of scholarly investigation that is apparent in the National Curriculum and traditional notions of information-seeking and use in their own field, which frequently represent information as a physical entity (Shenton 2004a), this more restricted perspective is not universally held in LIS. It is striking that, although a library-oriented emphasis has been detected by Case (2007) in Krikelas’s much quoted model of information-seeking (Krikelas 1983), the framework nonetheless indicates that sources may be internal, as well as external, and involve, for example, memory and direct observations. The latter characteristic is consistent with the comment of Madden, Palimi and Bryson (2005) that, through the use of scent, sound and tracks, animals derive “information” from the environment.

4. Construct meaning (Table 5)

The construction of meaning in the sense intended here may be defined as the use of internal processes to develop, either from acquired material or from past experience, insights hitherto unknown to the individual. In a National Curriculum context, these “insights” may be as diverse as subject-related knowledge/understanding, discoveries that contribute to the solution of a problem or a critical appreciation of a particular source that has been consulted. This fourth phase may include the generating of ideas which help to drive forward the investigative activity or the arranging of one’s work in such a way that cognitive progress towards an end result is achieved. The mental processes pertaining to the construction of meaning may eventually lead to a firm outcome, such as an argument, a conclusion or a generalization, or simply the answering of a question. Yet, where a learner is intent on responding to a particular question, it is pertinent to note a subtle distinction made by Kuhlthau, Maniotes and Caspari (2007) in their model of guided enquiry. They suggest that it is helpful to encourage pupils to address questions in their investigations, rather than answer them. The former, they maintain, is more likely to lead to new and deeper understanding.

Much is often made in the study of IB of how, in the ‘use’ phase, material that has been accessed affects one’s knowledge. Todd (2006), for example, asserts that information use involves “the transformation and integration of found information into existing knowledge, and the creation of new knowledge”. In his PLUS model of information skills, Herring (1996) also emphasizes the cognitive dimension of information use when he states that this stage includes evaluating material, taking notes systematically in a way that reflects the individual’s understanding and purpose, and relating the material to one’s existing knowledge. From Herring’s reference to note-taking, we can conclude that this phase is not an exclusively “in the head” phenomenon and key features of it may be apparent from an individual’s external behaviour. Such a stance is supported by TD Wilson, who maintains that information use includes physical acts associated with the incorporation of information into a person’s existing knowledge base, such as the marking of portions of text that has been retrieved to indicate their importance or significance to the reader (Wilson 2000).

5. Communicate to others (Table 6)

Several recurring requirements in this area can be isolated when the totality of the National Curriculum documentation pertinent to this phase is considered. Learners are expected to use a variety of means of communication competently across a range of scenarios; they should employ techniques and vocabulary that are appropriate to both the discipline and the material they are intent on conveying; they must be mindful of their purpose and the audience/readership; as their maturity grows, it is envisaged that they adopt increasingly demanding features of effective writing, such as the use of evidence in establishing a case or argument, and improve a piece of work gradually over time.

The penultimate strand within the CILIP definition of IL emphasizes the need to communicate or share one’s findings with others (Abell et al 2005). Again, the matter of doing so appropriately is raised, in terms of the information itself, the audience and the situation. The body also indicates the importance of employing a suitable style, and of including citations and footnotes. Drawing on material from the final report of the American Library Association Presidential Committee on Information Literacy, Breivik and Senn (1998) assert that an information literate person will use information effectively “to address the problem or issue at hand” (p. 21). In a school context, perhaps the clearest outcomes that are produced in response to such problems or issues take the form of personally prepared documents, spoken presentations or oral contributions to class discussions. It should not be forgotten, however, that, even after information has been used effectively in the construction of meaning, the new understanding may not be explicitly communicated. It may be sufficient for the pupil simply ‘to know’ or, as Doyle (1994) points out, the new understanding may manifest itself through improved problem solving skills or critical thinking which is brought to bear in future practical or intellectual situations.

6. Consider and assess (Table 7)

This phase deals with the evaluation of one’s own work and efforts; it should not be confused with the appraisal of material produced by others and examined as sources – an area embraced in the construction of meaning element forming Stage Four. In its most basic form evident in the National Curriculum, “considering and assessing” may involve merely checking one’s work but the process can be extended into thinking about how what has been done can be improved and how feedback from others may be accommodated. Particular attention may be focused on one particular element within the overall process; in Key Stage Four Science, the scrutiny of data collection methods that have been employed is singled out for special attention.

Self-evaluation forms the last component within the PLUS model of information skills. Here Herring (1996) notes the importance of reflecting on the processes associated with assignment work. His other major focus of interest – identifying areas for improvement in the individual’s use of information resources in the future – is indicative of his overall emphasis on information, rather than simply the investigative process generally. Although Paterson (1981), in exploring the final element in his information skills checklist – that of “development” – also stresses the information aspect of the evaluation stage (p. 9), he addresses both product and process dimensions. For Eisenberg and Berkowitz (2003), these can be seen to relate to translate into matters of “effectiveness” and “efficiency” respectively (p. 15).

Caveats

One of the weaknesses of the approach that has been taken here is that breaking down the investigative process according to six major stages is somewhat artificial, since each is just one element within a whole task. Parallels can be drawn between this situation and the study of IB which, very often, is seen to embrace a sequence which, in its entirety, embraces the recognition of an information need, the pursuit of material in response to the need and the use of what has been found in order to resolve the situation that motivated the seeking action. As Vakkari (1997) recognizes, “Methodically ‘information needs’ and ‘seeking’ are only analytical differentiations for the purpose of analysis. Methodologically they will be treated as functions of a broader task or problem situation to be coped with” (p. 457).

Readers should also be aware that, whilst the way in which the individual elements have been presented here and, in particular, their numbering from one to six imply that they form a single linear sequence, this may not always be the case. Let us consider two cases in point. When a learner examines information with a view to constructing meaning, this may lead to the emergence of new questions, a development which effectively returns the enquiry to Stage One. Similarly, if the evaluation of information (covered within Stage Four) reveals that the material is unsuitable, this may mean a new quest for appropriate material has to be initiated, so returning the sequence to the second phase. It is perhaps more useful, then, to think of investigative activity as the combining of the elements presented here, rather than a predictable chronological sequence. Again, this is consistent with conceptions of IB. After outlining a series of elements, Westbrook (1993) concludes by observing, “Rather than a sequence… information seeking might best be described as the interconnection of these activities” (p. 546).

It should also be appreciated that some of the individual tasks specified in the National Curriculum documentation may emerge in more than one position within the enquiry process. Documentation for Key Stage Four Science indicates that pupils should “evaluate data collection methods”. One approach would be to think of this activity as integral to the “consider and assess” category, with the pupil reflecting on one of the key components within the enquiry they have just undertaken. Such evaluation may also be regarded as part of the planning phase, however, with pupils reaching judgements on the effectiveness of various techniques before finalizing their decision to use one in particular. The placement of other processes is a more subjective decision that rests in the hands of the model creator. The use of higher order reading skills, for example, may be viewed both as a means of locating relevant material in text and as a method by which the individual constructs meaning. Such skills could, with good justification, be positioned within either Stage Three or Four.

Conclusions

No claim is made that the framework which has been advanced in this paper provides a definitive analysis of the generic skills featured in the National Curriculum taught in England. Inevitably, the orders will change over time and, indeed, a new version of the National Curriculum is due to come into effect within schools as soon as September 2014. It would seem unlikely, however, that revisions in the months and years ahead will be so radical as to negate entirely the value of the model presented here. Indeed, it is an indication of the longstanding relevance of the core skills that they are evident in such well established forms of investigation as research involving the collection and analysis of new data, scientific enquiry and IL. Where teachers are able to stress the importance of the areas that have been discussed in this article, afford pupils substantial opportunities to practise them and make pertinent links with other subjects, they undoubtedly help to enhance learning not only in their own disciplines but also across the curriculum and to promote forms of scholarly activity that are widely undertaken beyond the school years.

When the National Curriculum documentation associated with each subject was examined for the purposes of preparing this paper, it became increasingly obvious that the essential principles which are apparent in individual stages of IL both transcend and underpin the teaching of investigative skills in many different areas. Whilst the contexts in which these skills are often applied in the National Curriculum may not always be seen by teachers to embrace ‘information’ in the sense that they conceive of the concept, processes which are fundamental to IL nonetheless lie at the heart of much teaching and learning within the English school, whether it be primary or secondary.

Although the paper offered here will probably be of most interest to educators in England, it should not be assumed that its usefulness will necessarily be limited to teachers and information professionals in that country. Readers who are based further afield and live in places whose educational systems lack an equivalent to England’s National Curriculum may well see value in adopting the model of investigation that has been proposed and employing it in their own situations. It is a further indication of the wide-ranging relevance of the framework’s contents, here in a geographical sense, that the individual elements bear strong similarities to those within a model of “teacher research” proposed in Canada by the British Columbia Teacher-librarians’ Association (undated). Table 8 provides a direct comparison. In addition, readers who are keen to develop their own models from source material that has been produced in their own countries may find merit in following the methodology that has been outlined in order to evolve new frameworks which accommodate local priorities and issues.

Table 8.

Comparison of components found in author’s framework of enquiry and those in BCTLA model of teacher research.

Own framework evolved from National Curriculum	BCTLA elements in teacher research model
Initiate enquiry	Focus and refine
Plan action to follow	Focus and refine
Implement; acquire material for scrutiny	Collect
Construct meaning	Make meaning
Record for others	Report
Consider and assess	Reflect

Implications for the information professional

Given the remit of the IFLA Journal, it would seem appropriate to complete this paper with a short breakdown of the ways in which librarians can facilitate the enquiry process that has been addressed here. Information professionals in schools would seem to have particularly important roles to play in

crystallizing the nature of the territory for an investigation so that either a viable question can be posed by the pupil or the issue which has been isolated is of appropriate scope for a project of the type intended to take place

helping the learner to conceive a plan of action that exploits the individual’s skills and the resources available to them, including those that relate to libraries within the school and the wider community

assisting the youngster in accessing pertinent information and developing their skills in this area where possible

enabling the enquirer to make sense of the material that has been retrieved, in terms of both its value to the task and its intrinsic content

facilitating the writing/creation process directly by offering pointers to the youngster in advance of the work being constructed, reading drafts and asking the pupil to address particular shortcomings that are apparent

aiding the process in which the learner appraises the end result of their efforts. Taking a lead from what is shown to them, the information professional may, for example, suggest questions that stimulate evaluation or employ a more generic approach, returning attention to the assignment brief and inviting the learner simply to consider how far the teacher’s original stipulations have been met.

References

Abell

Armstrong

Boden

Town

Webber

Woolley

(2005) Defining information literacy for the UK. Library and Information Update 4 (1–2): 22–25.

Bawden

Robinson

(2009) The dark side of information: Overload, anxiety and other paradoxes and pathologies. Journal of Information Science 35(2): 180–191.

Breivik

Senn

(1998) Information Literacy: Educating children for the 21st century. 2nd ed. Washington: National Education Association.

British Columbia Teacher-librarians’ Association (undated) Teacher research. Available at: http://bctf.ca/bctla/pub/documents/Points%20of%20Inquiry/TeacherResearch.pdf (Accessed: 28 May 2013).

Case

(2007) Looking for information: A survey of research on information seeking, needs, and behavior. 2nd ed. London: Academic Press.

Coles

Shepherd

White

(1982) The science of library and book skills. School Librarian 30(2): 200–207.

Congdon

(1978) Working alone: The child’s guide to independent study. Solihull: Gifted Children’s Information Centre.

Derakhshan

Singh

(2011) Integration of Information Literacy into the curriculum: A meta-synthesis. Library Review 60(3): 218–229.

Doyle

(1994) Information-literate use of telecommunications. CMLEA Journal 17(2): 17–20.

10.

Eisenberg

Berkowitz

(2003) The definitive Big6^TM workshop handbook. 3rd ed. Worthington, Ohio: Linworth.

11.

Eisenberg

Brown

(1992) Current themes regarding library and information skills instruction: Research supporting and research lacking. School Library Media Quarterly 20(2): 103–109.

12.

Eisenberg

Lowe

Spitzer

(2004) Information Literacy: Essential skills for the information age. 2nd ed. Westport, Connecticut: Libraries Unlimited.

13.

Farmer

LSJ

(2007) What is the question? IFLA Journal 33(1): 41–49.

14.

Fosmire

(2012) Information Literacy and engineering design: Developing an integrated conceptual model. IFLA Journal 38(1): 47–52.

15.

Gross

(2006) Studying children’s questions: Imposed and self-generated information seeking at school. Lanham, Maryland: Scarecrow.

16.

Herring

(1996) Teaching information skills in schools. London: Library Association.

17.

Higgins

(1995) Information technology. In: Ashcroft

Palacio

(eds) The primary teacher’s guide to the new National Curriculum. London: Falmer, pp. 168–178.

18.

Irving

(1985) Study and information skills across the curriculum. London: Heinemann.

19.

Keene

Colvin

Sissons

(2010) Mapping student Information Literacy activity against Bloom’s taxonomy of cognitive skills. Journal of Information Literacy 4(1): 6–21. Available at: http://ojs.lboro.ac.uk/ojs/index.php/JIL/article/view/PRA-V4-I1-2010-1/1451 (Accessed: 28 May 2013).

20.

Kelley

(2008) Making minds: What’s wrong with education – and what should we do about it? London: Routledge.

21.

Krikelas

(1983) Information-seeking behavior: Patterns and concepts. Drexel Library Quarterly 19(2): 5–20.

22.

Kuhlthau

Maniotes

Caspari

(2007) Guided inquiry: Learning in the 21st century. Westport, Connecticut: Libraries Unlimited.

23.

Lee

(2010) 10 year retrospect on stage models of e-government: A qualitative meta-synthesis. Government Information Quarterly 27(3): 220–230.

24.

Library Association (1991) Curriculum guidance: National Curriculum and learning skills. Library Association.

25.

Lincoln

(1987) The learning school. London: British Library.

26.

Lindsay

(1976) Information training in secondary schools. Education Libraries Journal 19(3): 16–21.

27.

Mackey

Jacobson

(2011) Reframing Information Literacy as a metaliteracy. College and Research Libraries 72(1): 62–78.

28.

Madden

Palimi

Bryson

(2005) Information behaviour in pre-literate societies. Author manuscript available at: http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/582/1/Spink_chapter131204.pdf (Accessed: 28 May 2013).

29.

Marland

(ed) (1981) Information skills in the secondary curriculum. London: Methuen.

30.

National Council for Educational Technology (1993) Information skills in action. Coventry: National Council for Educational Technology.

31.

Paterson

(1981) Information skills 8 to 18. Hull: Professional Centre, Hull College of Higher Education.

32.

Ryan

Capra

(2001) Information Literacy planning for educators: The ILPO approach. School Libraries Worldwide 7(1): 1–10. Available at: www.iasl-online.org/files/jan01-ryan-capra.pdf (Accessed: 28 May 2013).

33.

Shenton

(2004a) Operationalising the concept of “information” for research into information behaviour. Aslib Proceedings 56(6): 367–372.

34.

Shenton

(2004b) Research into young people’s information-seeking: Perspectives and methods. Aslib Proceedings 56(4): 243–254.

35.

Shenton

(2009) Information Literacy and scholarly investigation: A British perspective. IFLA Journal 35(3): 226–231.

36.

Shenton

(2011) Synergistic or antagonistic? The relationship between library/information science and primary/secondary education. New Library World 112 (11/12): 532–548.

37.

Shenton

Dixon

(2003) Sequential or selective access? Young people’s strategies for finding information in non-fiction books. New Review of Children’s Literature and Librarianship 9: 57–69.

38.

Shenton

Hay-Gibson

(2012) Information behaviour meta-models. Library Review 61(2): 92–109.

39.

Tabberer

Allman

(1984) Introducing study skills: An appraisal of initiatives at 16+. Windsor: NFER/Nelson.

40.

Tibbitts

(1992) Higher order reading skills, SLG News 28: 14–15.

41.

Todd

(2006) From information to knowledge: Charting and measuring changes in students’ knowledge of a curriculum topic. Information Research, 11(4). Available at: http://informationr.net/ir/11-4/paper264.html (Accessed: 28 May 2013).

42.

Vakkari

(1997) Information seeking in context: A challenging metatheory. In: Vakkari

Savolainen

Dervin

(eds) Information seeking in context. London: Taylor Graham, pp. 451–464.

43.

Wersig

Neveling

(1975) The phenomena of interest to information science. The Information Scientist 9(4): 127–140.

44.

Westbrook

(1993) User needs: A synthesis and analysis of current theories for the practitioner. RQ 32(4): 541–549.

45.

Wilson

(1998) Consilience: The unity of knowledge. New York: Alfred A Knopf.

46.

Wilson

(2000) Human information behavior. Informing Science 3(2): 49–55.

47.

Wray

Lewis

(1995) Extending interactions with non-fiction texts: An EXIT into understanding. Reading 29(1): 2–9.

48.

Yin

(1994) Case study research: Design and methods. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage.

49.

Young

(1999) The big three Information Literacy models. Knowledge Quest 27(3): 32–35.