導論
多元的術語
素養註釋
技能型素養; 圖書館素養
技能型素養; 媒體素養
技能型素養; 電腦素養, 資訊科技素養, 電子素養
資訊素養
Literacy有多種譯法, 本文採用「素養」一詞。
很多人討論過資訊素養, 包括但不以此為限: Snavely and Cooper (1997)、Mutch (1997)、Carbo (1997)、Behrens (1994)、Doyle (1994)、Dess (1991)、Ochs等 (1991)、Olsen and Coons (1989)、Kulthau (1987)、McClure (1994)、Bruce (1997A, 1999), 有時把若干素養互相比較, 本文特別比較資訊素養和數位素養。
雖然很多學科對資訊素養有若干討論, 主要的論文仍出自圖書資訊學的領域(Behrens1994)。
避免給予明確的定義, 祗給實務上的建議, 相關的教學文件並沒有注意人在資訊素養裡的價值(Barclay1995)。
有些論文提供書目式的回顧Dupuis (1997)、Snavely and Cooper (1997)、Ridgeway (1990)。
單獨使用「素養」這個術語之外, 還有很多術語被使用過:
根據Library and Information Science Abstracts (LISA)及Social Scisearch的內容, 分析1980至 1998的文獻, 發現五個術語的出現頻率:
Information computer library media network digital
1998 65 18 0 15 4 4
1997 89 30 2 10 4 5
1996 62 34 0 9 1 0
1995 57 26 1 2 1 0
1994 27 32 3 3 1 0
1993 17 15 6 1 0 0
1992 24 14 2 2 0 0
1991 40 15 1 0 0 0
1990 17 6 6 0 0 0
1989 7 13 2 2 0 0
1988 2 8 2 0 0 0
1987 2 19 1 0 0 0
1986 1 15 6 3 0 0
1985 1 30 4 2 0 0
1984 3 36 2 2 0 0
1983 3 44 2 0 0 0
1982 1 10 0 0 0 0
1981 1 8 2 0 0 0
1980 0 0 1 1 0 0
Computer literacy和library literacy持續穩定的成長; Information literacy在1980年成長較緩, 1990年之後, 大幅向上成長; Media literacy於1990年之後, 才有成長; network and digital literacy祗在最後幾年才出現。
素養係譯自Literacy, 它是教養(literate)的狀態及品質, 尤其是讀寫的能力(The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition, Boston, Ma. : Houghton Mifflin, 2000)
素養有很多解釋(McGarry1991A, 1994、Snavely and Cooper 1997), 集中在三個概念:
一九六○年八月在加拿大蒙特羅舉行的世界成人教育會議, 是推展素養教育掃除文盲的起點;
會中指出：「素養是獲得特定技能和知識以適應世界變遷的必備品......素養本身便很重要, 並對經濟發展及政治成熟有重大影響。」
（Cairns, 1970）
一九八七年國際成人教育協會於加拿大多倫多舉行「工業化國家素養研討會」時指出：「
素養追求發展的基本人權, 文盲不僅是開發中國家的問題, 在工業化國家亦然。它是貧窮、失業、疏離、及受壓迫者的一種符號與反映,
世界各國運用各種方法和資源掃除文盲, 才符合社會正義的要求。」許多文盲常處於社會的底層, 成為社會的弱勢團體, 缺
乏基本的讀、寫、算能力, 沒有溝通的能力, 進而阻礙了解、參與社會, 享受文化建設成果之機會, 亟需社會大眾的重視。
文盲對個人而言是一項嚴重負擔（Bacharch, 1989）, 國際成人教育會議（Internation
Council for Adult Education）主席Dame Nito女士在接受“Convergence”雜誌（Karan,
1990）的專訪中表示: 「素養為社會不利者開發了一個新世界, 藉由閱讀了解屬於自己的權利......多人之所以難求溫飽、
四處飄泊、居無定所, 泰半因為素養不足; 不但沒有謀職的基本技能, 甚至連求職廣告都看不懂
」（張國珍，民80）。因此, 素養的重要性和素養教育的必要性十分明顯。聯合國將一九九○年訂為國際識字年
（International Literacy Year,
ILY），針對全球的文盲人口，將展開為期十年的掃盲工作。
文盲是低度開發地區的一項特徵, 根據聯合國教科文組織（UNESCO）的統計, 一九八五年時,
全世界十五歲以上的三十二億人口數中，文盲數近九億人，
而在亞非地區的文盲人口數則自一九七○年的七億六千萬漸增到一九八五年八億五千多萬人；對於向來重視義務教育的工業化國家而言，不識字的人應該早就不可能
存在；遑論文盲問題。
直到本世紀中期起，各工業化國家才陸續意識到：雖然人民都受過長期的學校教育，但國內確實存在著數以百萬的文盲或半文盲人口。如 英國國家廣播公司的推廣教育部門，在一九七二年提出一份文盲者極需受到幫助的報告（莫慧如，民79）。因此工業化國家多紛紛投注人力、經費在推展成人識字 教育上。
素養的最簡潔定義是運用書寫文字的能力, 能夠讀寫及瞭解書寫文字的人, 被稱為有素養的人。這種定義下的素養被稱為印刷素養或文字素養(McGarry 1994)。素養是一種相對的狀態, 在美國紐約有素養的人, 不見得在臺灣台北有相同的素養(McGarry, 1993); 文化的瞭解是素養的重要部份(hirsch, 1987; Raskin, 1992)。
除了讀寫能力之外, 還有需具備辨認及瞭解其內容的能力(Gilster, 1997), 因此, 產生多種看法:
在基本的讀寫能力之外, 還需具備瞭解及執行其功能的能力(Depuis, 1997)。
為了在社會生存, 取得資訊的技能(Olsen and Coons 1989)
整合傾聽、談論、閱讀、撰寫及批判性思考的能力, 並加入數字的能力。具備文化的知識, 讓講者、寫者及讀者能夠在不同的社會情境,
使用及確認適當的語文。在科技成熟的社會裡, 素養的目的是讓人民以語文增加其思考、創造及批判的能力, 以期有效的參與社會(Campbell,
1990)。
素養是符合其年歲的溝通技巧(Hillrich, 1976)。
一個人對於英語達到讀、說、寫的能力，且在工作與社會需求上，能從事計算與解決問題的能力，以達成個人的目標，發展個人的知識與潛能
(National Literacy Act, 1991)。
Definition of Literate:
A person who can with understanding both read and write a short simple
statement on his everyday life.
A person is functionally literate who can engage in all those
activities in which literacy is required for effective functioning of
his group and community and also for enabling him to continue to use
reading, writing and calculation for his own and the community's
development. (UNESCO 1986)
Doyle(1992)對資訊素養定義為個人具有從龐大資源中蒐集、評估與利用資訊的能力。並認為凡是具有下列能力者為具
資訊素養者﹕（1）能認識資訊的需求、（2）能認識正確性與完整性的資訊是做明智決定的基礎、（3）基於資訊需求來陳述問題、（4）確認資訊的潛在來源、
（5）發展成功的搜尋策略、（6）利用電腦與其他科技獲取資訊資源、（7）評估資訊、（8）組織資訊予以利用、（9）整合新資訊在已有的知識架構與
（10）以批判性思考與解決問題的觀點來利用資訊。
素養是很功能化的狀態, 包括閱讀藥袋的說明, 依指示服藥。根據這個指標, 聯合國1998年人類發展報告(Human Development Report)指出, 20% 的英國成年人屬於功能性無素養。1997年9月英國統計局(UK Office for National Statistics)的報告指出, 25%的成年人看不懂火車時刻表, 也不瞭解報紙的內容。1999年3月, Sir Claus Moser對英國政府提出的報告裡, 提到6%成年人的素養技能極低, 即使是最簡單最短的句子, 也難以消化; 13%的成年人, 屬於低度素養技能範圍, 可以讀簡單的文句, 但不會查看字順型指南的款目內容。
功能性素養係指具有讀寫知識及技能的人, 在他的文化或群體裡, 以這些應具備的素養, 參與各項活動(Grey, 1956)(Graff,
1994)。
有些學者認為讀寫能力可以量化, 精確計算, 進而透過教育訓練改善讀寫能力, 並計算其改善的程度(Mensching and
mensching, 1989)。
素養的掘起及變化, Meek(1991)有詳細的說明; by Kintgen, Kroll and Rose, who provide
an overview of many
perspectives on the topic; by Street (1984), who particularly
emphasises the different meanings of literacy for
members of different groups, with correspondingly different uses and
ways of attainment; by Ong (1982),
who points out that literacy enables a grasp of abstract concepts, and
of abstract connections, such as cause
and effect; by Oxenham (1980), who gives an overview history of the
concept; and by Graff (1994), who reviews
the changing criteria for literacy over time, noting keypoints in the
history of Western literacy. More specifically,
the rise of literacy in England has been
discussed in relation to education (Stone 1969) and to popular culture
(Vincent 1989). Havelock (1986), in discussing the rise of literacy in
classical Greece, draws attention to
the general relation between literacy and an appropriate script and
alphabet. Arp (1990), Breivik (1991) and Behrens
(1994), give an account of the changing nature of the literacy concept
in the information society, while the
various contributors to the volume edited by Tuman (1992) review the
changing concept of literacy when print is supplemented, and to a
degree supplanted, by digital and multimedia resources.
曾經歸納出34個素養的術語(Snavely and Cooper, 1997), 指向能力或特定領域的基本知識。
素養首先考慮讀寫能力, 然後是在社會運用的功能性, 近年來, 以技能型素養為主流。
1980年, 美國RQ期刊的專欄, 首先使用圖書館素養這個術語, 定義為學習查找資訊的基本技能。
被視為資訊素養的先河, 通常指讀者使用圖書館的能力; 也有把圖書館發展的素養課程, 列為圖書館素養的一部份。
不是有無圖書館素養, 而是圖書館素養的程度。可以分為四個程度(Fatzer, 1987):
無圖書館素養 - 無法獨自從書架找到特定的書
準圖書館素養 - 可以獨自從書架找書, 也可以找到特定的論文
有圖書館素養 - 可以有系統的檢索資訊, 取得並評估特定領域的相關資訊
精圖書館素養 - 瞭解傳播及出版的模式, 能夠調整檢索策略, 滿足資訊需求
對於從電視、廣播、報紙、雜誌、網路等媒體取得的資訊, 具有批判性思考的能力(Kubey, 1997)。有媒體素養的人,
具有解讀、評估、分析及製作印刷及電子媒體的能力(Aufderheide and Firestone, 1993)。
媒體素養的範圍與資訊素養重複, 資訊可以從多個領域取得, 不以媒體為限Graham, Bawden and Nicholas
(1997), Sheppard and Bawden
(1997), 早年對資訊素養的瞭解類似於媒體素養Hamelink (1976), 後來, 則把媒體素養視為資訊素養的一部份McClure
(1994)。
圖書館員鼓助讀者思考報紙消息的正確性及有效性, 協助讀者具備媒體素養, 形成批判性思考及媒體素養運動, 融入圖書館的書目指導計畫裡
Dilevko and Grewal (1998)。
UK Royal Society of Arts computer literacy training scheme (RSA
1993)把電腦素養定義為會使用「工作及生活上用到的資訊科技」, 解讀為會使用電腦套裝軟體 - 文書處理、資料庫、試算表等,
以及複製檔案等工作; 更被簡化為為使用個人電腦(Kanter, 1992)。
從社會的層面討論, 電腦素養有其他的涵意:
圖書館員體認電腦素養的重要性(Ovens,1991),
電腦素養是控制電腦而非被電腦控制, 瞭解電腦能力的極限。
電腦素養有三個內涵(Tuckett, 1989):
對美國圖書館學會認可的圖書資訊學系做的調查指出(Lowell, 1997), 要求入學的新生應具備電腦素養,
它的內容係指使用套裝軟體的能力。
美國教育部預見學習型社會的到來, 期望每個人都具備使用數位資訊的能力, 因而強調電腦素養
(Department of Education 1983); 美國國立教育學院建議一種混合型的電腦/資訊素養, 以使用硬體及軟體的能力為訴求(Johnson
1985)。
荷蘭政府建議在學校教育裡, 新增「資訊素養及電腦素養」課程, 教導「運用電腦取得資訊解決特定問題或瞭解相關領域及控制整個程序的知識及技能」(van Weering and Plomp 1991)。
資訊素養不應被視為電腦素養(Snavely and Cooper, 1997; Olsen and Coons, 1989), 很多學者對此提出警語(Olsen and Coons, 1989; Taylor, 1986), 電腦不等於資訊, 把電腦素養視為資訊素養是嚴重的誤謬; 電腦素養祗是資訊素養裡的子集合(Tuckett, 1989)。
資訊素養著重辨認及評估資訊的能力, 以及將資訊放在相關文化及社會裡閱讀的能力(Johnston and Webber, 1999)。
資訊技術素養的六個層次(Coles, 1998):
從應用的角度來看, 有幾個方向:
Information Literacy
This term seems to have been first used by Paul Zurkowski (1974). Its
early usage, and in particular its emergence
as a close relation to ideas of educational reform, particularly in the
USA, are reviewed by Behrens (1994), Doyle
(1994), Ridgeway (1990), Rader (1991) and Kuhlthau (1987).
Zurkowski’s initial usage of term, however, in a submission to the US
National Commission on Libraries and
information Science in 1974, in his capacity as president of the US
information Industries Association, was rather
different. Describing the information service environment within the
USA, and focusing on the private sector,
Zurkowski suggested that national information literacy within a decade
was a reasonable goal. He saw information
literacy as emerging from the transformation of traditional library
services into more innovative private sector
information provision, and the policy issues associated. Information
literacy was associated with the effective use
of information within a working, probably commercial, environment, and
specifically with problem solving:
‘People trained in the application of information resources to their
work can be called information literates. They
have learned techniques and skills for utilizing the wide range of
information tools as well as primary sources in
moulding information solutions to their problems’.
A somewhat similar early use of the term, again emphasising
problem-solving, was given by Burchinall (1976):
Page 10
Information and digital literacies; a review of concepts. David Bawden.
Journal of Documentation, 2001
10
‘To be information literate requires a new set of skills. These include
how to locate and use information needed for
problem-solving and decision-making efficiently and effectively’
However, even at this early stage, a view was being expressed of
information literacy as something serving a wider
function than simply efficient problem solving in a work setting, and
extending to the functions of citizenship - e.g.
‘beyond information literacy for greater work effectiveness and
efficiency, information literacy is needed to
guarantee the survival of democratic institutions’ (Owens 1976) - while
the US Information Industries Association
in 1979, though retaining a problem-solving emphasis, had broadened
Zurkowski’s original definition away from a
strictly work-related focus, defining an information literate person as
someone who ‘knows the techniques and
skills for using information tools in molding solutions to problems’
(Garfield 1979). Taylor (1979) introduced the
term to the library literature in much the same terms, while broadening
its scope:
‘an approximate definition of [information literacy] would include the
following elements: that solutions to many
(not all) problems can be aided by the acquisition of appropriate facts
and information; that knowledge of the
variety of information resources available (who and where) is a
requisite of this literacy; that the informing
process, which is continual, is as important as the spot information
process, which is occasional; and that there are
strategies (when and how) of information acquisition.’
25 years later, Doyle (1994) defined the term in a more succinct
statement of similar principles:
‘information literacy is the ability to access, evaluate and use
information from a variety of sources’.
Another early, and very different, usage of the term was by Hamelink
(1976), who used it to refer to the need for
the general public to be liberated from what he saw has the oppressive
effects of news media, which provided too
many ‘pre-digested explanations’, and which could be overcome only by
provision of news channels free from
control by political or economic interests. This view of information
literacy as the ability to obtain an individual
and independent view of news events does not seem to have been followed
subsequently, though it has something
in common with media literacy, as noted above.
Thus, from the earliest time of its usage, ‘information literacy’ has
had very varied connotations. Arp, writing in
1990, noted that the phrase’s meaning was unclear, especially to those
outside the library community, where some
measure of consensus, albeit limited, had arguably been reached at the
time of Arp’s article. In the intervening
years, little progress seems to have made in clarifying matters. In
1997, Snavely and Cooper still had to conclude
that ‘disagreement over the term information literacy is fairly strong
and seems to be widespead’.
One prevailing problem appears to be the enthusiasm of many
commentators to give a single all-encmpassing
definition of information literacy, whereas it has been recognised from
an early stage as a multi-faceted topic.
‘True information literacy is made up of the effective combination of a
number of knowledges and skills .. the
kinds of knowledge and capabilities that any educated person will need
to operate effectively in an information-
rich technological society’ (Taylor 1986).
In an illustration of this, McClure (1994), after pointing out that
information literacy must deal with information
in whatever format, i.e. encompassing both print and electronic
formats, positions it at the intersection of four
other literacies - traditional, computer, media and network - and
within a wider set of information problem-solving
skills.
Tuckett (1989) suggests that information literacy can be seen as a
hierarchy of skills, at three levels. In ascending
order of complexity, these levels are:
• simple information skills
using a single information tool, e.g. a library catalogue
• compound information skills
combining simple information skills/tools, e.g. preparing a
bibliography by searching several databases
• complex/integrated information skills
making use of a variety of information networks, evaluating and
repackaging information
Page 11
Information and digital literacies; a review of concepts. David Bawden.
Journal of Documentation, 2001
11
Tuckett argues that this model can be used in the design of training
programmes, and also suggests that it
illustrates the intimate relation between information literacy and
computer literacy, since the latter provides a set
of skills needed at each level of the hierarchy.
Information Literacy and Learning
As Ford (1995) and Ridgeway (1990) note, the term having been first
used in the 1970s, its rapidly changed its
meaning in response to educational reform, and to international
concerns:’ information literate people are those
who have learned how to learn because they know how knowledge is
organised, how to find information, and how
to use information in a way that others can learn from them’ (Ford
1995).
This link between the concept of information literacy and learning has
been a consistent theme, and has strongly
coloured the meaning of the term. Educational institutions and
associations have urged the incorporation of
information within each and every programme of study. Take for example
a pronouncement of the US Association
of Supervision and Curriculum Development (Ford 1991): ‘Information
literacy, the ability to locate, process and
use information effectively, equips individuals to take advantage of
the opportunities inherent in the global
information society. information literacy should be part of every
student’s educational experience. ASCD urges
schools, colleges and universities to integrate information literacy
programmes into learning programme for all
students’.
In the same vein, Lenox and Walker (1992) argue that ‘the dynamic and
changing information environment of the
last quarter of the century makes the acquisition of information
literacy during formal education both a practical
necessity and a moral right’. Defining information literacy rather
broadly as ‘that skill which allows us to express,
to explore and to understand the flow of ideas among individuals and
groups of people in a vastly changing
technological environment … the process, skills and habits of accessing
and using ideas and information are
undergoing revolutionary changes. Information literacy refers .. to
this set of complex, integrated, higher-level
skills appropriate to our age’. They are critical of the ALA approach
to information literacy as being too library-
centred, and are particularly critical of the view of information
literacy as an extension of bibliographic instruction
(both of these are discussed below). [Reichel (1990) similarly argues
that a ‘political’ aspect of the use of the
information literacy term is its provision of a link to the ‘nonlibrary
world’.] Lenox and Walker argue that
information literacy must include sources far beyond those provided by
libraries, including films, television,
posters, conversations, etc., and that students: ‘if we are to teach
information literacy, we must teach students to
sort, to discriminate, to select, and to analyze the array of messages
that are presented. MacAdam (1990) makes a
similar point, in respect of the teaching of information literacy to
students of mass communication. There seems
here to be a strong flavour of media literacy, though these authors do
not use the term. (It is also fair to note that
other authors, such as Rader (1991) have argued that information
literacy must include information from sources
such as television and newspapers.) Further, Lenox and Walker argue
strongly against information literacy as an
isolated skill, seeing it as a formative agent, central to the whole
educational curriculum: ‘teaching information is ..
a conceptual framework for the development of educational models and
curricular concepts in systematically
addressing information skill development in a diverse society .. a
curriculum and pedagogy designed to help
[students] use their knowledge in deciding, acting and behaving in this
world’. Information literacy is then closely
associated with resource-based learning, in which teachers and
librarians both act as facilitators of students’
learning (Brevik and Gee 1989, Lenox and Walker 1992 ).
By contrast, Johnston and Webber (1999) argue that information literacy
may be developed as an academic
discipline, and taught in its own right. They give the example of a one
semester (12 week) course, taught to
undergraduate students in the Business School of Strathclyde
University, aiming at providing students with a
foundation of information seeking and communication skills for use in
their studies of other topics.
One important strand of an emphasis on information literacy as a
component, perhaps a core component, of formal
education is an emphasis on life-long learning, for which information
literacy is seen as essential, and in a series of
initiatives undertaken in the USA, information literacy was promoted in
this way. Educational associations
predominated among more than 50 national associations represented on
the US National Forum for Information
Literacy, formed in 1993, and described as ‘an umbrella group of
national organizations committed to turning
people into effective information consumers’ (Breivik and Ford 1993).
The idea of information literacy as a vital
Page 12
Information and digital literacies; a review of concepts. David Bawden.
Journal of Documentation, 2001
12
tool for lifelong learning was also promoted by Candy, Crebert and
O’Leary (1994) in a report dealing with
Australian undergraduate education.
The first significant response of the library / information community
to the emerging concept of information
literacy was that of the American Library Association (Brevivik 1989,
Ridgeway 1990, Rader 1991), whose
Presidential Commission reported in 1989 (ALA 1989), also taking a view
of information literacy firmly from the
educational, specifically lifelong learning, viewpoint: ‘What is called
for is not a new information studies
curriculum but, rather, a restructuring of the learning process ..
based on information resources available for
learning and problem solving throughout peoples lifetimes .. [which]
would not only enhance the critical thinking
skills of students, but will also empower them for lifelong learning
and the effective performance of professional
and civic responsibilities’.
The report addressed the importance of information literacy to
individuals, to business and to citizenship., arguing
that the key to providing for all three areas was the establishment of
information literacy as a part of formal
education, but then applicable throughout an individual’s lifetime. It
took a wide definition of information
resources, by no means restricted to formal library sources, and
arguing that information could come from ‘a
computer, a book, a government agency, a film or any number of other
possible resources’
The ALA’s definition of the term (ALA 1989) includes the following:
‘To be information literate an individual must recognise when
information is needed and have an ability to locate,
evaluate and use effectively the information needed .. Ultimately
information literate people are those who have
learned how to learn. They know how to learn because they know how
information is organised, how to find
information, and how to use information in such a way that others can
learn from them’. The ALA report called
for a revamping of the learning process itself, rather than of any
particular curriculum, ensuring that students were
competent in six general areas:
• recognising a need for information
• identifying what information would address a particular problem
• finding the needed information
• evaluating the information found
• organising the information
• using the information effectively in address the specific problem
Murdock (1995) paraphrases this, with an emphasis on library users, as
information literacy referring to ‘users
who understand the importance of information and who have the
competence to locate, evaluate and manage it
comfortably’. Similarly, Mosley (1998) summarises it as
‘information-seeking, assimilation and critical analysis
skills’. A somewhat broader definition, along the same lines, is that
given by Olsen and Coons (1989), for whom
information literacy can be defined as ‘understanding the role and
power of information, having the ability to
locate it, retrieve it, and use it in decision making, and having the
ability to generate and manipulate it using
electronic processes’. Jackson (1989) expresses it simply that
‘information literacy involves knowing your way
around in the information world’.
Doyle (1992) gives a somewhat expanded version of these points, in
defining an information literate person as
someone who:
• recognises that accurate and complete information is the basis for
intelligent decision making
• recognises the need for information
• formulates questions based on information need
• identifies potential sources of information
• develops successful search strategies
• accesses sources of information including computer-based and other
technologies
• evaluates information
• organises information for practical application
• integrates new information into an existing body of knowledge
• uses information in critical thinking and problem solving
Page 13
Information and digital literacies; a review of concepts. David Bawden.
Journal of Documentation, 2001
13
Another variation is presented by Bruce (1994) who gives seven ‘key
characteristics’ of an information literate
person, as one who:
• engages in independent, self-directed learning
• uses information processes
• uses a variety of information technologies and systems
• has internalised values that promote information use
• has a sound knowledge of the world of information
• approaches information critically
• has a personal information style that facilitates his or her
interaction with the world of information
The idea of the ‘personal style’ as being important in understanding
information literacy is emphasised by, inter
alia, Carbo (1997), who includes individual traits and learning styles
as one axis of a model for information
literacy, and Siitonen (1996), who sees an understanding of each
person’s own ‘intellectual, psychic and
psychological capabilities’ as important in a ‘truly information
literate person’.
A more recent instantiation of the link between new trends and
information literacy is the New Learning
Communities programme of the Coalition for Networked Information
(Tompkins, Perry and Lippincott 1998).
This programme, designed to support new initiatives in education made
possible by the availability of networks
and networked information resources, focused on the convergence of
three trends: increased availability of
networks, specifically the Internet, in US higher eduaction; increasing
requirement for collaboration in teaching
and learning; need for students to develop information literacy as part
of the curriculum. The concept of
information literacy in this programme seems very much to resolve
around students identifying, accessing and
evaluating Internet resources for project work, with an element of web
page creation; closely akin to what has been
described elsewhere as Internet literacy.
A much broader definition of information literacy to is given by Rader
(1990, 1991). Emphasising that
information literacy is essential for survival in the future, she
argues that the information literate citizen will be
characterised by an ability to acquire and use information appropriate
for any situation, within or beyond the
library, both locally and globally. This will be brought about by a
variety of rather general competencies, so that
information literate people will be able to:
• survive and be successful in an information/technology environment
• lead productive, healthy and satisfying lives in a democratic society
• deal effectively with rapidly changing environments
• ensure a better future for the next generation
• find appropriate information for personal and professional problem
solving
• have writing and computer proficiencies
Information literacy and bibliographic instruction
The concept of information literacy as being closely linked with formal
learning has been taken up with
enthusiasm by librarians, particularly in the academic sector, who have
seen it as fitting in well with their
‘traditional’ role:
‘Striving for an information-literate population is a basic goal of
librarianship .. the work on information literacy
builds on many rich traditions in librarianship, including adult
literacy and library instruction.’ (Reichel 1991)
Most librarians have taken a closely focused view of it as a form of,
or perhaps a successor to, traditional ‘user
education’, ‘library skills’ or, perhaps most directly, ‘bibliographic
instruction’ [though, as noted above, this view
has been criticised as too narrow]. As Depuis (1997) puts it, ‘many
[bibliographic instruction] programs are now
working with or evolving into information literacy programs’;
confirmation of Breivik’s 1989 plea that ‘we must
move beyond programs of library instruction to information literacy’.
The relation between these two concepts has been discussed by several
authors, including Snavely and Cooper
(1997), Rader (1991), Lenox and Walker (1992), Rader and Coons (1992),
Miller (1992), White (1992),
Murdock (1995), and Arp (1990). However, their conclusions are by no
means unanimous. The lack of general
agreement that information literacy in some way supersedes, or updates,
bibliographic instruction is indicated by
the fact that the former Bibliographic Instruction Section of the US
Association of College and Research
Page 14
Information and digital literacies; a review of concepts. David Bawden.
Journal of Documentation, 2001
14
Libraries, in its search over more than ten years for a more
appropriate, inclusive and modern name, eliminated
Information Literacy as a suitable new name early in its
considerations, indicating its lack of general acceptance
(Snavely and Cooper 1997)
Arp (1990) notes that neither term had been well-defined, so that some
confusion was inevitable. White (1992)
notes that some, at least, of the stated goals of information literacy
programmes are far from new, and were an
accepted part of bibliographic instruction. Rader and Coons (1992),
arguing that the two terms are distinct,
suggested that the nature of the distinction could be clarified:
‘bibliographic instruction is more often a situation-
specific response, whereas information literacy contributes towards
life-long learning by educating individuals to
effectively utilize and evaluate information’. Rader (1991) suggests
that the two should not be seen as alternatives,
nor as competitors, but rather that information literacy is broader
concept, and that ‘bibliographic instruction is
part of an evolution towards information literacy’. Curran (1991)
suggests that information literacy is s more
holistic concept than bibliographic instruction, and implies an
expanded set of roles for information professionals
involved in it. Reichel (1990) makes the pragmatic points that whereas
bibliographic instruction is firmly tied to
the academic library, information literacy is a concept which may be
appealing in other library environments.
Murdock (1995) argues that bibliographic instruction has, in fact gone
through three generations of rather
different definition: in the 1970s, viewed essentially as library
orientation; in the 1980s, with a concentration on
teaching library patrons to use research sources; and in the 1990s,
with an emphasis on the shift from print to
electronic and multimedia sources. She believes, however, that
bibliographic instruction is ‘still dominated by its
association with short-range, library-centered, print-bound
instruction’, and that information literacy provides a
new paradigm to include effective use of computer an multimedia
technologies.
Wilson (1989) gives a typical example of the ideas of information
literacy emerging from this kind of library-
based instruction: ‘A definition of information literacy emerged as we
planned the content and sequence of the
course. We wanted the students to understand, first of all, the journey
of ideas from a scholar’s brain to the
various print and electronic indexes where these ideas become
accessible to the scholarly community as a whole.
Second, we wanted them to recognise the roles of the actors along the
way: scholars, publishers, vendors, libraries,
computing centres, utilities, users. Throughout the course we explored
the role of the academic library as one of
the actors in this journey’.
The usage of the phrase in the context of library education, its
appropriateness, and possible alternatives are
discussed in detail by Snavely and Cooper (1997). They conclude that,
despite remaining substantial disagreement
about the term, which largely relate to the ‘broader and more
extraneous elements that have been added to the
definition, it is possible to discern a measure of agreement that it
can be used to describe new trends in library
instruction. Specifically, these include:
• independent learning, with students able to undertake all steps of
the ALA definition
• ability to apply these principles throughout a lifetime
• instruction in a wider variety of information resources (print as
well as electronic)
• shift from strictly content-based instruction on particular resources
to a process-based and useer-focused
approach
• faculty collaboration
• association with new instructional techniques, such as active
learning and critical thinking
This results in a newer form of library instruction, which these
authors seem to regard as a successor to traditional
bibliographic instruction. They then address the question of whether
the old term, the new term , or some
alternative is best to describe this, analysing the question in some
detail. Among the 36 alternative terms which
they consider are
• abstractionism
• information competence
• information sophistication
• information inquiry
• know how to know how
• reading and research
• virtuous instruction
Page 15
Information and digital literacies; a review of concepts. David Bawden.
Journal of Documentation, 2001
15
• knowledge R us
They also considered ‘library literacy’ but rejected it, apparently
because of a perceived limitation in scope.
Ultimately, their conclusion was that information literacy was an
appropriate term to use provided that it was used
‘carefully and with clarity’, and with appreciation of the unique role
of the library. The term should not be used to
refer to simple instruction in use of any resource, nor to acquisition
of computer skills or computer literacy, nor to
the general processes of gathering and evaluating information, which
occur in many environments. It should be
restricted to programmes enabling students and other users to
‘appreciate and find their way through the many
voices contributing to knowledge .. the large body of recorded
knowledge which libraries (traditional and
electronic) can offer, and which complement, and not replace, learning
occurring elsewhere.
Information literacy and business information
As noted above, the concept of information literacy has been largely
discussed in terms of education, both formal,
school- and college-based, and lifelong learning, and of the library
environment, particularly the academic
environment. This is despite the origins of the term in the context of
private sector information services, as noted
above, and the inclusion of ‘business’ as one of the three key areas
for the use of information literacy in the ALA’s
influential report (ALA 1989), which emphasised the value of relevant
information in the commercial world. The
implication appears to be that, provided long-term information literacy
skills are imparted during formal
education, they will be used during an individual’s working life.
However, the specific and explicit relevance of the information
literacy concept to the commercial and business
world has also received some attention. Horton (1983) in an early
example of the view of information literacy as a
somewhat expanded computer literacy, suggested that ‘amplifying the
firm’s intellectual resources is what
information literacy is all about’, and similarly argued in 1985 for
information literacy programmes to convert
commercial information centres into knowledge centres. Drucker
(1994),using the term ‘infoliteracy’ to describe
an apparently similar concept, emphasised that business managers should
themselves take responsibility for
identifying, analysing and communicating their information needs,
rather than relying on information specialists.
Kanter (1988, 1996) explores the importance of information literacy in
business, and discusses techniques which
information systems managers can use to improve the information
literacy skills of business executives.
Mutch (1997) reviews the applicability of the information literacy
concept in the private sector, noting in
particular the link between ‘lifelong learning’ and the ‘learning
organisation’ (see, for example, Senge 1990). The
lack of appreciation of this link was noted by Daniels, who commented
in 1994 that ‘relatively few people are
information literate and even fewer understand the relevance of
information to their business visions’. Daniels, like
most commentators, gives emphasis to IT skills in his idea of business
information literacy. Kanter (1992) similar
sees information literacy as comprising ‘an understanding of the
general concepts of information processing; how
computer systems support and shape a person’s job function, the
trade-offs between investment and benefits, time
expended and time saved; and the application areas that will give a
company a strategic advantage.’ However, he
argues for a distinction between this, and the simpler concept of
computer literacy; ‘information literacy is a stage
above computer literacy, the latter usually implying the ability to use
a personal computer’. This tendency to focus
on IT is criticised by Mutch (1997), and by Drucker, who, in an
interview with Harris (1993), argues for the
centrality of information literacy and against a fixation with
computers; a brief presentation of similar views is
made by Quinn (1991). Similarly, Oxbrow (1998), in presenting a vision
of information literacy as broader than
computer literacy, and with a focus on information and knowledge,
argues that ‘companies, organisation, countries
and societies that ignore the need to improve information literacy will
not be in a position to compete effectively in
the new information age.’
Information literacy: skills and components
An early extended definition of information literacy, incorporating a
list of skills required, was devised in 1985 by
the Auraria Library of the University of Colorado (Fatzer 1987, Behrens
1994). This gave as a general definition
that information literacy was ‘the ability to effectively access and
evaluate information for a given need’. The
characteristics of information literacy, thus defined, were that it was:
• an integrated set of skills (e.g. research strategy, evaluation) and
knowledge (of tools and resources)
• not just knowledge of sources
Page 16
Information and digital literacies; a review of concepts. David Bawden.
Journal of Documentation, 2001
16
• not solely associated with the library
• distinct from, but relevant to, literacy and computer literacy
• not just information finding
• developed through particular attitudes (persistence, attention to
detail, caution in accepting single sources)
• time and labour intensive
• a problem-solving activity, and therefore need-driven
Demo (1986) and Behrens (1994) regard the formulation of this
definition as being particularly significant, as
marking the point at which information literacy became a major issue in
the library/information world, but also the
beginning of a much broader scope for library-based education in
information handling.
A number of lists of this nature, all attempting to define lists of
necessary skills and attributes, were drawn up
during the late 1980s and early 1990s. A typical example is that of
Doyle (1992), based on a Delphi study, which
identified 21 outcome measures, of very varied degrees of specificity,
for the process of information literacy, such
as: ability to access computers and other technologies; ability to
identify and information need; ability to formulate
questions which focus the information need; to list relevant sources;
to know how to learn; to be able to make
appropriate decisions; etc.
More recently, Depuis (1997), writing from the perspective of an
academic librarian, surveys and references the
concept of information literacy as a part of library instruction,
noting that ‘definitions of information literacy vary
slightly from source to source, though the focus is on helping students
gain a broad understanding of information
sources - including those outside of the library - and honing their
ability to deal with that information’. She gives a
list of 35 skills necessary for ‘creating and nurturing’ information
literacy, culled from the printed literature and
the Internet, which are divided into six principal sections [presented
here as a composite of two rather different
lists in the original]:
• understanding the information world, including information
technologies, while understanding that not all
information is found on a computer
• assessing information need, and articulating what information is
needed
• assessing and selecting resources, and searching effectively,
including and understanding of the structure of
literature, the distinctions between controlled and uncontrolled
vocabularies, between precise and
comprehensive searching etc.
• evaluating and interpreting information, in different formats and
media, and employing critical analysis
• manipulating and organising information
• communicating to others the location and content of information
found, including citation practices and the
integration of new information into an existing body of knowledge
This is very much a composite list, drawn from a number of sources;
taken as a whole, it forms a highly ambitious
set of skills, which, arguably, very few information professionals
would possess in their entirety. This strikes an
echo with the thought of Maguire, Kazlauskas and Weir (1994) that
information literacy, as commonly
propounded, may be a noble concept, but it may also be a utopian one.
As a practical demonstration of this, Olsen and Coons (1989) describe a
programme of information literacy
education in an academic setting, which appears to have had wide scope,
comprising five ‘encompassing goals,
each of these having between 5 and 8 ‘subordinate objectives’. The
goals, and examples of objectives, were:
• understand the role and power of information in a democratic society
• how practicing professionals use information and keep currently
informed
• understand the variety of the content and format of information
• distinguish between primary and secondary sources
• evaluate the quality of information and the usefulness of the content
and format of a particular
information tool based on relevant criteria
• understand standard systems for the organisation of information
• determine the index structure and access points of print or
computerised information resources
• develop the capability to retrieve information from a variety of
systems and in various formats
• successfully navigate within the libraries they use
Page 17
Information and digital literacies; a review of concepts. David Bawden.
Journal of Documentation, 2001
17
• describe the differences between controlled vocabularies and keywords
and use both efficiently in their
search strategy
• develop the capability to organise and manipulate information for
various access and retrieval purposes
• write correct bibliographic citations for book, journal articles and
conference papers
• use a bibliographic file management package to organise downloaded
citations and personal files of
references
A more recent exemplification of this approach is a Internet-based
‘internet literacy tutorial’, offered by
Minneapolis Community and Technical College (MCTC 1999); this includes
teaching materials, and self-
assessment tests, in six areas: production of knowledge; organisation
of knowledge; using and evaluating
electronic resources; using and evaluating printed resources; citing
sources; intellectual freedom, copyright and
censorship.
Depuis (1997) advocates that information literacy programmes should not
teach skills which are specific to any
particular source or situation, but rather promote the learning of
generalised processes and principles for selecting,
searching and manipulating content. As against this, many information
literacy programmes appear to be fairly
straightforward extensions of library instruction programmes, with
emphasis on specific sources of relevance to
each student’s studies, albeit taking the broader viewpoint, including
research skills; good examples is given by
Naito (1991), for students in a wide range of subjects, and by MacAdam
(1990) for students of media and
communications. In the latter case, although the programme was based
in, and provided by, an academic library,
many of the sources used came from sources outside the library -
personal contacts, interviews, surveys, etc.
While some writers on information literacy, for example Depuis (1997),
emphasise that an information literacy
programme must include resources other than those in electronic form,
this is by no means an universal approach.
For example, Williams and Zald (1997) describe the Uwired programme of
the University of Washington, a
campus-wide initiative with the ultimate aim that information literacy
should be a hallmark of a degree from that
institution. The primary goal is to create ‘an electronic community in
which communication, collaboration, and
information technologies are integral to teaching an learning’; the
core skill areas are electronic mail, the Web and
library databases. Presumably the latter implies access to
non-electronic material, but the general approach is very
much one of information literacy equating with effective use of new
information and communication technologies,
in a similar manner to Netherlands ICL concept, noted earlier.
The term ‘critical thinking’, or the largely equivalent ‘critical
analysis’ has been used several times above, as being
generally regarded as an important component of information literacy;
see, for example, several of the papers in
Oberman and Kimmage (1995), and the ‘critical thinking and information
literacy’ curriculum of Bellvue
Community College, Washington (Bellvue 1999). This term, as Gibson and
Meade (1996) note, is ‘sometimes
overused, and not well understood’; often, it seems to be equated to a
simple evaluation of sources, while actually
implying much more. It is also often associated with overcoming the
problems of information overload:
’Thanks to science and technology, access to factual knowledge of all
kinds is rising exponentially while dropping
in unit cost. It is destined to be global and democratic. Soon it will
be available everywhere on television and
computer screens. What then ? The answer is clear: synthesis. We are
drowning in information, while starving for
wisdom. The world henceforth will be run by synthesisers, people able
to put together the right information at the
right time, think critically about it, and make important choices
wisely’, (Wilson 1998A, p300).
Cheek and Doskatsch (1998), for example, discuss the need for nurses to
develop information literacy skills, in
order to cope with ‘an information overabundant environment’.
There is not space here for a full discussion of the diverse meanings
of this term; see, for example, Arp (1995).
Here we will follow Gibson and Meade (1996) in suggesting that it is ‘a
disciplined process of:
• asking informed questions
• posing problems in various ways before attempting to solve them
• examining assumptions
• solving ill-structured, messy, ‘real-world’ problems
• evaluating sources of information
Page 18
Information and digital literacies; a review of concepts. David Bawden.
Journal of Documentation, 2001
18
• assessing the quality of one’s own thinking and problem-solving’
plus, crucially, the ability to create mental frameworks to give
context to the mass of information which may be
available on the subject at hand.
Ford (1991) also argues that one fundamental aspect of information
literacy, at least in the sense of library
education, will be of librarians helping users to develop frameworks in
which information can be understood.
Going beyond the information control of a specific discipline, this
will deal with the structure of information per
se, and will be, Ford suggests, particularly important with an increase
in interdisciplinary information.
Brouwer (1997) sees information literacy as centred around a form of
critical thinking, although, as noted above,
he views information literacy itself as one of three components of an
expansive vision of computer literacy:
‘information literacy mean developing a critical approach to the use of
information .. in essence, information
literacy boils down to helping students as technology users to ask the
right questions about information’. He sees
this as involving five components, or competencies:
• distinguishing between information and knowledge
• asking key questions about information, what the source is and what
assumptions are contained within
information
• assessing the usefulness, timeliness, accuracy and integrity of
information
• nor being content with the first six “hits” on a search
• questioning/checking answers provided by technology tools
Information literacy and information specialists
Murdock (1995) argues that the consensus view of information literacy
as a means of empowering library users to
identify information needs, and locate, evaluate and manage information
is flawed, in that it places the onus for
locating and managing information on the users, whereas Murdock
believes that this is ‘properly the province of
information specialists, and can provide us with our most exciting
professional challenge’. She argues that
information literacy should be embodied in libraries’ finding
technology, so that they become truly user friendly - a
view following Breivik’s 1989 suggestion that ‘we must .. insist on
user-friendly information systems as opposed
to library systems .. just as we must move beyond programs of library
instruction to information literacy - and she
‘[envisions] information literacy redefined to mean the knowledge
needed by information specialists to redesign
information retrieval within libraries’.
Brouwer (1997) suggests that librarians have useful experience in
information literacy instruction and can serve as
valuable resources for this purpose, in promoting his broad concept of
computer literacy.
Breivik (1989) makes an explicit link between information literacy and
evidence-based practice suggesting that as
information literacy becomes established one would hear ‘fundamental
questions that make information literacy so
important: how do you know that - what evidence do you have for that -
who says so - how can we find out’.
Although this link is made in the specific context of the teaching of
information literacy in colleges, it can equally
be seen as relevant to the increasingly important role of information
professionals in supporting evidence-based
practice.
Information literacy and the information society
As noted above, several authors have seen a connection between
information literacy and active citizenship, dating
from the earliest use of the term. This is put particularly clearly by
librarian-turned-Congressman Major Owens
(1976):
‘Information literacy is needed to guarantee the survival of democratic
institutions. All men are created equal, but
voters with information resources are in a position to make more
intelligent decisions than citizens who are
information illiterates. The application of information resources to
the process of decision-making to fulfill civic
responsibilities is a vital necessity.’
Owens (1991) expanded upon essentially the same point some 15 years
later.
Other authors make the same point in different ways: ‘The goal of
information literacy is to ensure that people
understand how to, and why they need to, learn about sources in the
information society. Some of these sources
Page 19
Information and digital literacies; a review of concepts. David Bawden.
Journal of Documentation, 2001
19
will be in the library; others will be in the world at large’ (Depuis
1997). ‘Information literacy is a survival skill in
the Information Age’ (ALA 1989); ‘essential for survival in the future’
(Rader 1990). Education in information
literacy will ‘play an important role in keeping the society from
fragmenting into a population of information
“haves” and “have nots” (Tompkins, Perry and Lippincott 1998). ‘Many
people consider information literacy to
be the most important skill for the 90s and for the 21
st
century’ (Naito 1991) [my italics]. Oxbrow (1998)
describes information literacy as ‘the final key to an information
society’, and argues that promotion of
information literacy within society as a whole is an essential step
towards benefiting from a knowledge based
society.
Information literacy and literacy per se; ‘informacy’
A view expressed by a number of writers, and reviewed by Behrens
(1994), is that information literacy, far from
being another ‘add-on’ skill to literacy itself, should be seen rather
as a factor causing a change in the nature of the
parent concept: ‘in the midst of the information explosion, the ability
to access, retrieve and evaluate information
should constitute a significant part of today’s definition of literacy’
(Ford 1991). (It was noted above that the
same suggestion has been made for the more restricted concept of
computer literacy.)
Olsen and Coons (1989) elucidate this clearly:
‘We will have to acquire a new bundle of information skills, which will
be fundamental to functioning in society ,,
we will have to expand the traditional skills of literacy.. we are
proposing that true literacy, in an era when
information is a strategic global commodity, has to include information
literacy .. In short, information literacy is a
necessary expansion of the traditional notion of literacy’.
Similarly Kulthau (1987):
‘What does it mean to be literate in an information society ?
Information literacy is closely tied to functional
literacy. It involves the ability to read and use information essential
for everyday life’.
and Lanham (1995):
‘The word “literacy”, meaning the ability to read and write, has
gradually extended its grasp in the digital age until
it has come to mean the ability to understand information, however
presented.’
and Lynch (1998)
‘Information literacy .. goes far beyond the traditional textual
literacy that has been considered part of a basic
education’.
One practical illustration of this view is the trend for educational
institutions, which may have made a writing
component mandatory in every course, as a means of promoting
traditional literacy, to include a similarly
mandatory ‘information literacy’ component, either by adding an
additional requirement or by combining the two;
see, for example, MacAdam (1990) and Naito (1991).
The term ‘informacy’ has been used for this widened concept of
literacy; see, for example, Neelameghan (1995)
and Robson (1998).
Information literacy: criticisms of the concept
Despite the enthusiastic adoption of the term by library/information
professionals, and many others, the usage of
the phrase, and the concept itself, have not been without their
critics, some of them severe. A variety of these
criticisms are summarised, from a library viewpoint, by Snavely and
Cooper (1997), who quote a particularly
trenchant criticism for an anonymous colleague, to the effect that
‘information literacy has a hollow sound. It is
empty of content and has the connotation of being a fad’.
McCrank (1992), suggests that librarians are imitating the use of an
earlier poorly conceived term - computer
literacy - by increasingly using a phrase whose meaning is not
generally accepted; in particular, he objects to the
idea that information literacy in itself can be an educational goal. It
is also worth noting that, as mentioned above,
the former Bibliographic Instruction Section of the US Association of
College and Research Libraries declined to
Page 20
Information and digital literacies; a review of concepts. David Bawden.
Journal of Documentation, 2001
20
consider Information Literacy as a suitable new name, in view of its
lack of general acceptance in the library
community (Snavely and Cooper 1997).
Feinberg (1989), writing in the context of academic information
literacy programmes, argues trenchantly that it is
not sensible to attempt to teach students to become information
literate for the long term, for four reasons:
• it has not been demonstrated that it will be necessary for most
students to be information specialists to survive
and prosper
• much of what is taught to students under the guise of information
literacy has little relevance to their
immediate needs, which are typically for a few books or articles in
support of essays and projects
• there is no likelihood that most students will retain and use any
skills which they may learn
• the information skills and concepts needed in the future are unknown
at the present time; teaching information
access skills for lifelong learning is therefore a contradiction in
terms
Most of the other criticisms are essentially based on the difficulty of
assessing, still less accurately measuring,
information literacy. On this basis, White (1992) objected to the term,
preferring ‘information empowerment’,
which does not carry connotations of a measurable literacy.
Foster (1993) suggests that this is ‘a phrase in quest of a meaning’,
contrasting the parent term literacy, which can
be clearly defined, measured and quantitatively summarised, and which
has a clear opposite - illiteracy - with a
clear remedy. Arguing that the promotion of the information literacy
concept is ‘an exercise in public relations’,
Foster suggests that its purpose is essentially to exaggerate the
importance of librarians, by inventing a social
malady which they alone can cure. Miller (1992) is also troubled by the
nature of information illiteracy, which
presumably must exist if information literacy does, and implies that
librarians are treating clients on a remedial
level. Arp (1990) doubts whether the effectiveness of various forms of
information seeking behaviour are well
enough known to be measured with any accuracy, as would be necessary if
some types of behaviour, and hence
users, are to classed as information illiterate. She queries whether
this label could reasonably be attached to an
academic researcher who never uses electronic sources, but purchases
their own subscription to a relevant
specialised printed source; particularly if this person is also
successful in attracting grants, publishing articles, etc.
Though this particular example is somewhat dated - it would be
difficult in the late 1990s to find a chemical
researcher who ignored digital information - the general principle
holds good. What may be regarded as essential
for information literacy by the library/information specialist may be
seen very differently from other professional
perspectives. Bruce (1997A, 1997B) makes the same point, from a
relational perspective on information literacy,
showing how very differently it may be regarded, even by a seemingly
fairly similar group of academics and
academic librarians.
Mutch (1997) is concerned about the ‘alarming divorce of information
from knowledge’ in discussions of
information literacy. He argues that information literacy needs a
definition of information which recognises that it
is not structured data, nor restricted to the printed word, nor only to
formal sources - needs to include insights
from varied disciplines, and has doubts about treating the concept as a
subject in its own right: ‘The quest for
information literacy draws us inexorably into deeper questions about
the nature of knowledge, pointing again to
the need for it to be embedded in subject based thought, rather than
being treated as a standalone specialism.’
Though he concedes that the phrase ‘has some value in expressing what
might need to be done if the aims of
information policies are to be made concrete’, he stresses that this
must involve a greater concentration on issues
of meaning than is usually the case. Although Mutch does not make the
specific connection, these arguments serve
to show the potentially strong relations between information literacy
and knowledge management. This is made
explicit by Abell (1999) who argues that information literacy, as a
part of the daily skill set for people across an
organisation, is an important part underpinning skill for the
introduction of knowledge management.
Information literacy; conclusions
Information literacy, as shown by the various definitions above, is a
broader concept than the skills-based
literacies described earlier, and, according to the viewpoint of the
particular commentator, subsumes them or lies
alongside them.
Page 21
Information and digital literacies; a review of concepts. David Bawden.
Journal of Documentation, 2001
21
While information literacy is generally taken to include an ability to
deal with electronic sources, it has to some
ears a somewhat dated ring; perhaps for this reason, variants of the
concept of ‘digital literacy’ came in vogue
during the 1990s, as will now be discussed.
Digital Literacies
In this section, we note the concept of digital literacy itself, and
the related network, internet, multimedia- and
hyper-literacies. The term ‘e-literacy’ has occasionally been used, by
analogy with e-commerce etc., but its
phonetic similarity to ‘illiteracy’ renders it an unsuitable term, at
least in speech !
Digital Literacy or Digital Information Literacy
The term ‘digital literacy’ has been used by a number of authors
throughout the 1990s, to refer to an ability to
read and understand hypertextual and multimedia texts; see, for
example, Lanham (1995), who treats the term as
synonymous with ‘multimedia literacy’. Arguing that ‘literacy per se,
in a digital age, means an ability to
understand information however presented’, and that digital literacy
involves the skill of deciphering images,
sounds, etc. as well as text, Lanham argues for a fundamental
difference between print and digital literacy. The
same digital source may generate sounds, images etc., as well as words
and numbers, so that the medium of
expression may be suited to the information being offered, and to the
audience, in a way impossible with print; the
digitally literate must be able to understand and assimilate these new
forms of presentation.
The concept has been widely popularised, with an emphasis on
information retrieval and information management,
by Paul Gilster, with his book of the same title (Gilster 1997).
Gilster does not attempt to provide structured lists
of specific skills or components of digital literacy, which he defines
generally as ‘the ability to understand and use
information in multiple formats from a wide variety of sources when it
is presented via computers’. Indeed he
specifically states that ‘digital literacy is about mastering ideas,
not keystrokes’ distinguishing this concept, by
implication, from more restricted views of computer/IT literacy. And
‘digital literacy likewise extends the
boundaries of definition. It is cognition of what you see on the
computer screen when you use a networked
medium. It places demands upon you that were always present, though
less visible, in the analog media of
newspaper and TV. At the same time, it conjures up a new set of
challenges that require you to approach
networked computers without preconceptions. Not only must you acquire
the skill of finding things, you must also
acquire the ability to use these things in your life’. Another
fundamental aspect is an appreciation of the two-sided
nature of the Internet, allowing both user to interact, communicate and
publish, as well as access information.
Indeed Gilster sees digital literacy - ‘literacy in the Digital Age’ -
as being a current instantiation of the
‘traditional’ concept of literacy itself, which has always been seen as
involving, at its simplest, both reading and
writing.
However, he also gives a somewhat more restrictive definition of
digital literacy: ‘the ability to access networked
computer resources and use them’. His book is firmly centred on the
applications of the Internet, so much so that a
casual reader might assume that digital literacy and Internet literacy
are essentially identical. Indeed, Gilster
implies as much in the introduction, setting the challenge of effective
use of the Internet into the long sequence of
information technologies which began with the inscribed clay tablets of
the Sumerians. ‘Technology demands of
us, as it did of them, a sense of possibilities, a willingness to adapt
our skills to an evocative new medium. And
that is the heart of digital literacy. Our experience of the Internet
will be determined by how we master its core
competencies’. However, the understandable assumption from a skimmed
reading that Gilster takes digital to
equal Internet would be seriously mistaken. On a careful reading, it is
clear that he does allow for other forms of
input - ‘the Internet should be considered one among many sources of
ideas in a technological society’ and ‘no one
is asking you to give up other sources of information just to use the
Internet’ - and emphasises that digital literacy
involves an understanding of how to ‘back-up traditional forms of
content’ with networking tools, giving various
examples, including reference books in libraries, printed newspapers
and magazines, television, and printed works
of literature. In the context of ‘knowledge assembly, which he regards
as one of the core components of digital
literacy, he specifically states that this requires ‘evidence from
multiple sources, not just the world wide web’. It
would, therefore, be wrong to equate his conception of digital literacy
with a more narrow ‘Internet literacy’, still
less a ‘web literacy’. (Lynch 1998 makes a similar point about
information literacy - that it must take account of
the fact that many important sources are not digital, and will not be
for the forseeable future.)
Page 22
Information and digital literacies; a review of concepts. David Bawden.
Journal of Documentation, 2001
22
Although, as noted earlier, Gilster does not follow other authors in
presenting structured and itemised lists of
components and competencies, he does note that ‘acquiring digital
literacy for the Internet involves mastering a set
of core competencies’. These are presented in context throughout a
somewhat impressionistic and anecdotal (or
‘personal, evangelical and informal’, as Nicholas and Williams (1998)
put it), though persuasive and authoritive,
account of digital literacy, and include:
• the ability to make informed judgements about what is found on-line,
which he equates to ‘the art of critical
thinking’, the key to which is ‘forming a balanced assessment by
distinguishing between content and its
presentation’,
• skills of reading and understanding in a dynamic and non-sequential
hypertext environment
• knowledge assembly skills; building a ‘reliable information horde’
from diverse sources, with ‘the ability to
collect and evaluate both fact and opinion, ideally without bias’
• searching skills, essentially based in Internet search engines
• managing the ‘multimedia flow’, using information filters and agents
• creating a ‘personal information strategy’, with selection of sources
and delivery mechanisms
• an awareness of other people and our expanded ability [through
networks] to contact them to discuss issues
and get help
• being able to understand a problem and develop a set of questions
that will solve that information need
• understanding of backing up traditional forms of content with
networked tools
• wariness in judging validity and completeness of material referenced
by hypertext links
Various competence-based interpretations of Gilster’s work have
appeared, typical being the list provided by
Larsson (2000).
Gilster’s wide-ranging exposition of his topic, which extends to
considerations of the future of digital information
as well as present practicalities, is such that the reader may find a
degree of confusion as to the relative importance
of these competencies, and indeed which are truly core to digital
literacy. (Indeed, Nicholas and Williams (1998)
criticise his book as ‘not organised very well or very logically’.) At
various points, he refers to the first of them,
content evaluation and critical thinking about on-line information, as
the ‘most essential’, ‘most significant’ and
‘overarching’ competence, such that if it is mastered ‘the other skills
will fall into place’, and that it ‘remains
decisive’. [This reflects the attitudes of other authors, such as
Landow (1992) and Provenzo (1992), who suggest
that critical thinking is changed in its nature, and gains importance,
in a digital environment, especially one based
around hypertext.] However, Gilster elsewhere suggests the second
competence, dealing with dynamic, non-
sequential information, as the basis for the concept itself: ‘[digital
literacy] refers to a way of reading and
understanding information that differs from what we do when we sit down
to read a book or a newspaper. The
differences are inherent in the medium itself, and digital literacy
involves mastering them’. In another section, he
suggests that there are four core competencies of digital literacy,
invariant to technology changes:
• knowledge assembly
• Internet searching
• hypertextual navigation
• content evaluation
Gilster, as do other authors, suggests this new literacy has to be seen
as an essential life skill - ‘becoming as
necessary as a driver’s licence’ - or even (presumably metaphorically)
as a ‘survival skill’. This, for Gilster,
primarily reflects the significance of the Internet, which, if it will
not overwhelm each person’s life overnight ‘will
change it, subtly, continually, and with irresistible force’.
Depuis (1997) uses the term Digital Information Literacy, in describing
an Office and programme with that name
at the library of the University of Texas at Austin. The goal of this
programme is to ‘enable students, faculty and
staff to find, evaluate, and make effective use of digital
information’, by creating, running and monitoring training
programmes and materials for electronic information services; this
appears to centre on, while not being restricted
to, the Internet. Depuis notes that this Office, while by definition
emphasising electronic resources, works with
other librarians to ensure that students, in particular, are educated
about the complete range of information
resources available, including formats other than electronic. Wilson
(1998B) uses the term to refer to an ability to
evaluate Internet resources, which differs qualitatively and
quantitatively from the evaluative skills required for
printed material. Digital literacy has also been used to describe
specifically the form of literacy needed to deal with
Page 23
Information and digital literacies; a review of concepts. David Bawden.
Journal of Documentation, 2001
23
multimedia information (Gritsenko and Dovgiallo 1997), while the term
‘mediacy’ has been used to express the
form of literacy needed to access digital information in various media
(Carbo 1997, Inoue, Naito and Koshizuka
1997).
Quite how novel the digital literacy concept is, may be open to debate.
Nicholas and Williams (1998) have
described Gilster’s ideas as limited and well-known; while this may
well be so within the library-information
community, it seems clear that they have had a considerable impact in
the wider sphere.
Digital literacies: network literacy, internet literacy,
hyper-literacy, and multimedia literacy
The term ‘network literacy’ was introduced in McClure (1994), who
defined it as ‘the ability to identify, access
and use electronic information from the network’. It seems little
different from the concept of Internet literacy.
Maclure suggests that the basic components of network literacy include:
knowledge:
• an awareness of the range and uses of networked resources
• an understanding of the role and uses of networked information in
problem solving and ‘basic life activities’
• an understanding of the system by which networked information is
generated, managed and made available
skills:
• retrieval of specific types of information from networks
• manipulation of networked information; combining, enhancing, adding
value
• use of networked information to help make work-related and personal
decision
He notes that these competencies are not ‘add ons’ to traditional
literacy, but rather part of a wider notion of
literacy in an electronic society (see, for example, Papert 1993, Tuman
1992), and will require other literacies to
be in place. McLure places this literacy, along with traditional
literacy, computer literacy and media literacy as
four inter-related sets of competencies, within a broader set of
‘information problem-solving skills, with
information literacy as the intersection of the four.
Devlin (1997) uses the term in the context of instructing students in
when to use the Internet as a source on
information, and on optimal search strategies.
The term ‘networked learner support’ has been used to denote a kind of
updating of the library/information skills
education paradigm, to encompass the broader range of networked sources
(see, for example, the papers in
International Journal of Electronic Library Research, 1(3), 1997, and
the editorial in that issue by P Levy). It
has also been seen as a specific form of information (or perhaps IT)
literacy: ‘Entering the information age, the
focus has been on information literacy and preparing students for
lifelong learning. Networked learning represents
a particular form of information technology support to enhance this
development’ (Schreiber and Moring 1997).
Ohles and Maritz (1998) identify four particular skills for promotion
of life-long learning, all relating to use of
networked information: use of e-mail, and of professional electronic
mailing lists (listservs), searching online
databases, and searching the World Wide Web: eschewing the term network
literacy, or anything similar, they
describe these simply as ‘core information competencies’.
The term ‘internet literacy’, though quite often used informally since
1995, has appeared little in print. It is used as
the title of a volume of individual papers (Martin 1997), given the
sub-title ‘the instruction-web convergence’, and
covering the twin perspectives of the use of the Internet for teaching,
and teaching of the use of the Internet, with
some slant towards the perspectives and contribution of the librarian.
It appears to denote essentially the same as
‘network literacy’, and, to a large extent, ‘digital literacy’.
‘Hyper-literacy’ has been used to denote a form of knowledge gathering
made possible by the existence of large
volumes of text in hypertext (specifically HTML) form (Fillmore 1995).
The key concept of this notion is an
ability to understand ‘how the author’s text is accessed, by whom and
to what end, and also how the meaning of
an author’s text changes colour when it is contextualised through
juxtapositional linking’. The last point may be
understood to mean a consideration of other works to which it is
linked, implicitly or explicitly.
Page 24
Information and digital literacies; a review of concepts. David Bawden.
Journal of Documentation, 2001
24
It should be said that the effects of having material available in
hypertext form, and indeed the novelty of hypertext
itself, have been questioned by some commentators, for example, Lee
(1999, p21):
‘Despite claims to the contrary by some theorists, hypertext is neither
new nor innovative. In nearly all cases .. it is
simply providing links .. guiding [users] to other explanatory
information or to supplementary material. In other
words, exactly the same type of thing good teachers have been doing for
centuries, or an imitation of the function
of notes in good teaching texts’
The ideas noted above are also those underlying the concept of
‘multimedia literacy’, used apparently
synonymously with ‘digital literacy’ by Lanham (1995), which, by
allowing information to be presented in
alternative media, and examined interactively, ‘couples fixity and
novelty in a fertile oscillation’, and ‘recaptures
the expressivity of oral cultures’.
Naturally, this will imply a clear understanding of the relative value,
applicability and best use of printed
(sequential) and digital (hyperlinked) texts, and associated
multimedia. This form of literacy clearly becomes of
more importance as larger volumes of text appear as linked hypertext,
leading to Vannevar Bush’s concept of the
‘enormous mass of the common record’, a flexible and continuously
increasing corpus of inter-linked human
knowledge (Bush 1945). In its emphasis on reading and understanding of
texts, these terms seem to have more in
common with literacy per se, than with the other concepts discussed in
this section. As Lanham (1995) puts it ‘ to
be deeply literate in the digital world means being skilled at
deciphering complex images and sounds as well as
syntactical subtlties of words. Above all, it means being at home in a
shifting mixture of words, images and
sounds.’
Conclusions
Information literacy and digital literacy are central topics for the
information sciences. They are associated with
issues as varied as information overload, lifelong learning, knowledge
management, and the growth of the
information society.
Naturally, they been much discussed in the literature, but not,
perhaps, as much as their importance deserves; in
particular, they have not impinged much on the practitioner. Practical
implementation of, and support for, these
sets of skills, understandings and attitudes, apart from the library
instruction setting, has been patchy at best This
may in part be due to the confusion caused by the varied terminologies
and meanings discussed in this review.
The discussion above is intended to clarify the subject area, and
hopefully lead to greater take-up of these ideas.
Two main points emerge.
First, it is possible, and clearly appealing, for those interested in
this area to spend a great deal of time discussing
the finer points of, usually mutually contradictory, definitions. The
best antidote to this is to adopt a Popperian
position of explaining, rather than defining, terms. The labels
attached to these concepts do not matter; the
concepts themselves, and their significance for practice, do.
Second, it is tempting, again as is clear from the discussion, to
express these ideas in terms of sets of particular
skills to be learnt, and competences to be demonstrated. While this may
be valid for some limited purposes, it is
too restrictive overall; even in the supposed skill-based literacies,
broader considerations soon intrude.
To deal with the complexities of the current information environment, a
complex and broad from of literacy is
required. It must subsume all the skill-based literacies, but cannot be
restricted to them, nor can it be restricted to
any particular technology or set of technologies. Understanding,
meaning and context must be central to it. It is not
of importance whether this is called information literacy, digital
literacy, or simply literacy for an information age.
What is important is that it be actively promoted, as a central core of
principles and practice of the information
sciences.
Acknowledgements
I am grateful to three anonymous referees, who made detailed comments
on an initial version of this paper, and
suggested additional references.
Page 25
Information and digital literacies; a review of concepts. David Bawden.
Journal of Documentation, 2001
25
賴苑玲 (1999), 資訊素養與國小圖書館利用教育, 台中師範學院圖書館館訊第26期, http://lib.ntctc.edu.tw/info/info26.htm#topic1
賴苑玲 (2001), 如何將Big Six 技能融入國小課程, 書苑季刊48期, 第25-38頁, 2001年4月, http://www.ntl.gov.tw/publish/suyan/48/25.htm
J Andersen (1998), Social Responsibilities Discussion Group Paper, Literacy in Libraries, http://www.ifla.org/VII/dg/srdg/srdg3.htm
Literacy Definitions, http://www.virtualteachercentre.ca/Literacy/Resources/definitions.html
1
資訊素養及數位素養是資訊科學的中心議題, 與資訊超載、終身學習、知識管理、資訊社會有密切的關係。
術語的多元化, 導致內容不明確, 雖然已有相當的論文, 但其討論的重心, 侷限於圖書館利用指導課題裡。
置身於當今所謂的資訊洪流與「資訊化」社會中，資訊素養之培育被認定為必要的且是現代化國 民的生活必備條件之一，然就McClure（1994）的闡述，資訊素養的概念為一整合傳統素養（traditional literacy）、 電腦素養（computer literacy）、 媒體素養（media literacy） 和網路素養（network literacy） 等四個層面之解決資訊問題的能力，基此，其觀念可描繪如下圖所示：
由此可知，所謂擁有資訊素養者，同時也必須具備相當的其他「工具性能力」方能合乎所謂的「可有效地獲取、評估與運用資訊以解決問題或進行適當的決策」之標
準定義。由於拜資訊科技日新月異之賜，目前許多的資訊乃是藉由資訊系統或資訊科技的輔助，進行有效且更有效率地儲存、管理與分享，所以個人如需要搜尋、獲
取或應用所須的資訊，具備各式資訊科技的使用能力，例如使用電腦、網路或其他媒體的能力，則成為必備的先決條件；此外，根據學者對此定義的詮釋，亦大都肯
定其具良善之將人的能力向上提昇的意涵，認為資訊素養的具備並非與生俱來，亦非一蹴可及，故需要透過不斷地繼續學習，才能確保具足夠的資訊素養，成為名符
其實的現代公民，此實與終身學習的崇高理念不謀而合。
上述的論述乍聽之下，似乎相當地符合邏輯，但隱約之中，或許更值得令人進一步地去思考的議題是：既然使用資訊科技之工具的能力乃被視為是必要的，是否在
倡導、談論資訊素養的必須全面性普及之際，考量工具取得之平等和公平性的議題或許也相當值得發人省思？而當資訊科技的創新和進展正以迅雷不及掩耳的步調在
向前邁進之際，所有的科技皆不斷地追求和講究人性化的設計（Hi-Tech,
Hi-Touch）與朝向使用者便利性和易用性（user-friendly）演進之同時，能擁有最先進資訊科技的使用者往往能夠輕而易舉地搜尋、獲取和
運用資訊，以進行問題解決和獲致最佳的決策，但其所擁有的並非足以傲人之豐碩資訊素養，相對地，對其而言僅需以區區微不足道的金錢和一定程度的傳統素養，
即能達到相同的問題解決成效，這是否又意味著對於無法擁有、取得最佳的科技或工具的公民而言，資訊素養則相對地益形重要？抑或意謂著當一個人擁有的社會有
形資產愈缺乏時，其必須更付出更多的心力和進行學習以具備更多無形的資訊素養，方足以於此資訊爆炸的時代中和他人並駕齊驅？諸如此類議題之探討，或可藉由
回歸到資訊素養其最原始的定義之檢視與分析以一窺究竟。
資訊素養一詞最早由Zurkowski（1974）提出，其當時以身為美國資訊工業學會主席的身份，於向全國圖書暨資訊科學委員會的建言中，預見和闡明了
美國的資訊服務疆域將由傳統的圖書館服務延伸至私人企業的情形，換言之，私人企業亦將肩負起和扮演提供資訊服務的角色，而Zurkowski認為這是一個
攸關政策面的議題，故提議於未來十年當中將資訊素養訂定為全國性的發展目標之一的必要性，同時界定了資訊素養的意涵為和有效地運用資訊於所處的社會情境中
和工作上（尤其是企業界），特別是和其間之問題解決息息相關。而具備資訊素養者，依Zurkowski之見，為那些經過訓練而得以將資訊資源應用在其工作
上的人；他們藉由學習以獲致使用各式資訊工具的技巧與技能，同時熟悉各種問題解決方案的模組，爾後，資訊素養的意義不斷地被拓展和闡述，並認為應該超越
Zurkowski原本提出之所謂的和工作相關或以工作為基礎的意涵（Owens, 1976; Garfield,
1979），自此資訊素養一詞的意義也於焉有所轉變，漸漸地淡化了科技能力之工具性的色彩，且強化資訊搜尋、取得和運用以獲致問題解決的能力，其相關的定
義沿革可整理如下表所示：
資訊素養的定義沿革
| 提出者 | 年代 | 定義 |
| Hamelink | 1979 |
|
| 美國圖書館學會(American Library Association, ALA) | 1989 | 指個人具備能察覺到何時需要資訊及能夠有效地搜尋、評估與應用所需要資訊的能力 |
| Rader | 1990 | 針對不同的資訊需求，有能力評估不同資訊管道與來源的效度與可靠性，同時熟悉許多收集與儲存自己所 擁有資訊的技巧 |
| Curran | 1990 |
|
| Jones | 1992 | 能夠察覺到資訊的需要且明白需要的資訊內容為何，故能有效地搜尋、評估、組織並運用所獲得的資訊 |
| McHenry | 1992 |
|
| Olsen | 1992 |
|
| McCrank | 1992 | 一個抽象、理想化且涉及許多技巧與知識的能力或行為的術語，這個詞常常成為和圖書館利用相關名詞的 替代品 |
| Doyle | 1994 | 具備獲取、評估和使用各式資訊資源的能力 |
| 美國大學暨研究圖書館學會(Association of College & Research Libraries) | 2000 |
|
| 吳美美 | 1996 | 有效發現自己的資訊需要、尋找資訊及使用資訊的能力；亦即個人在資訊社會瞭解和外界做有意義溝通所 須的能力 |
| 林美和 | 1996 |
|
|
資料來源：Bawden
(2001)；李德竹（2000）；謝宜芳（2001）
|
由上述學者針對資訊素養所提出的定義可知，當資訊素養被廣泛地認定為一般民眾或現代公民
所必須具備的基本能力時，其意涵則有別於Zurkowski最初所界定之僅與職場相關的範疇，於是亦不應該如McClure以工具性（skill-based）的
能力來加以規範，否則其所可能衍生出的議題或問題也終將無法獲致圓滿解決的答案；此外，當許多學者仍持續地對資訊素養及其相關主題抱持著相當高的熱忱並致
力於深究之際，數位素養（digital literacy）
的概念也正逐漸地萌芽興起（Bawden,
2001），而現今在台灣政府積極地推動國家型數位學習等相關研究計畫的此時，適時地投入對此數位素養的探討與分析，或可對台灣全面落實數位學習之舉形成
有助於一臂之力之功效。
參考書
目：
李德竹（2000）。資訊素養的意義、內涵與演變，圖書與資訊學刊，35（Nov.）：1-25。
謝宜芳（2001）。資訊素養的相關概念，國立中央圖書館台灣分館館刊，7（4）：91-103。
Bawden, D. (2001). Progress in documentation--information and digital
literacies: A review of concepts, Journal of Documentation, 57(2):
218-247.
Garfield, E. (1979). 2001: An information society? Journal of
Information Science, 1: 209-215.
McClure, C. R. (1994). Network literacy:
A role for libraries? Information Technology and Libraries, 13(2):
116-117.
Owens, M. R. (1976). State, government and libraries, Library Journal,
101(1): 27.
Zurkowski, P. (1974). The information service environment:
Relationships and priorities. Washington, DC: National Commission on
Libraries and Information Science (Report ED 100391).