 |
 |
Hi The article in CILIP Update and on the web page accompanying the definition state very clearly and unequivocally that information sources may be in any form - including human. I wrote that and I stand by it. I have also made the point, both in earlier messages and in the Update article, that information literacy, and the definition we developed, is for all communities - public library users, school children, students, life-long learners, etc. My point in the previous message was that information literacy is about competence in using (finding, processing, publishing) information, and not about the slightly different, but related, areas of research methodology, data handling, media literacy, study skills, etc. Certainly, it touches on these but I would suggest that it does not encompass them; by which I mean it does not demand a full and comprehensive knowledge and expertise in each. For me, in developing the definition for information literacy (Information literacy is knowing when and why you need information, where to find it, and how to evaluate, use and communicate it in an ethical manner), the objective was to understand what it meant to be information literate, and what skills this implied. From that, I thought, conclusions could be drawn about e.g. how librarians could help users, how educators could facilitate learning, how students/pupils/learners could independently learn. If we now feel that in addition to being information literate, independent learners need to be competent in research methodologies - with all that this implies - then we are suggesting a separate, parallel literacy. I do not think that we should define information literacy in a particular way simply to validate the role of the librarian. We support users in many areas - including information literacy and research methodology, and I see no reason to lump them all together under a single heading. Chris Armstrong Information Automation Limited t. (+44) 1974 251302 e. [log in to unmask] w. www.i-a-l.co.uk