information-literacy

Information Literacy

Information literacy is the ability to recognize when information is needed, find it efficiently, evaluate it critically, and use it effectively and ethically. In a world where anyone can publish anything instantly, the bottleneck has shifted from information scarcity to information evaluation. The functionally literate reader of the 21st century must not only read well but search well, judge well, and synthesize well.

Agent affinity: achebe (source perspective, whose voice is represented), rosenblatt (reader as active constructor of meaning from sources), clay (assessment and scaffolding of research skills)

Concept IDs: read-informational-text, read-primary-sources, read-digital-reading, read-technical-documents

The Research Process

Research is not a linear sequence but a recursive cycle. Researchers move between stages, refining questions as they learn and circling back to earlier stages when new information changes the picture.

Stage 1 -- Formulate a Research Question

A good research question is:

• Focused -- narrow enough to be answerable within the scope of the project
• Open -- not answerable with a simple yes/no or a single fact
• Arguable -- reasonable people could disagree about the answer
• Researchable -- evidence exists or can be gathered to address it

Weak: "What is climate change?" (Too broad, factual.) Better: "How have Pacific Northwest salmon populations responded to warming stream temperatures since 2000?" (Focused, researchable, arguable.)

Stage 2 -- Identify Sources

| Source type | Characteristics | When to use | |---|---|---| | Primary sources | Original documents, data, artifacts -- the raw material of research | When you need firsthand evidence: speeches, letters, data sets, original research studies, interviews | | Secondary sources | Analysis, interpretation, or synthesis of primary sources | When you need expert analysis: textbooks, review articles, documentaries, biographies | | Tertiary sources | Compilations and summaries of secondary sources | When you need background: encyclopedias, Wikipedia, almanacs (starting points, not endpoints) |

Stage 3 -- Evaluate Sources

See "Source Evaluation Frameworks" below.

Stage 4 -- Synthesize Information

Synthesis is not summarizing sources one by one ("Source A says... Source B says..."). It is organizing information by theme, identifying patterns of agreement and disagreement, and constructing an integrated understanding.

Summary-based organization (weak): "Smith (2020) found X. Jones (2021) found Y. Lee (2022) found Z."

Synthesis-based organization (strong): "Stream temperature increases above 18C consistently reduce juvenile salmon survival (Smith, 2020; Lee, 2022), though the mechanism varies: Smith attributes mortality to direct thermal stress while Lee identifies reduced dissolved oxygen as the primary pathway. Jones (2021) complicates this picture by showing that populations with access to cold-water refugia maintain pre-warming survival rates."

Stage 5 -- Cite and Attribute

All information drawn from sources must be attributed. This is not merely a rule -- it is an intellectual practice that makes knowledge traceable, verifiable, and accountable.

Search Strategies

Keyword Development

The words you search for determine what you find. Effective searching requires translating a research question into searchable terms:

1. Identify core concepts in your question.
2. Generate synonyms for each concept.
3. Consider related terms (broader, narrower, disciplinary vocabulary).

Example. Research question: "How does social media affect teenage mental health?"

• Core concepts: social media, teenagers, mental health
• Synonyms: Instagram/TikTok/Facebook, adolescents/youth, depression/anxiety/well-being
• Related: screen time, cyberbullying, body image, self-esteem

Boolean Operators

| Operator | Effect | Example | |---|---|---| | AND | Narrows -- both terms must appear | "social media" AND "mental health" | | OR | Broadens -- either term may appear | teenagers OR adolescents | | NOT | Excludes -- removes results containing the term | depression NOT medication | | " " | Exact phrase | "body image" returns the phrase, not separate words | | ***** | Wildcard / truncation | teen* finds teen, teens, teenager, teenagers |

Database vs. Web Search

| Dimension | Web search (Google) | Academic database (JSTOR, EBSCO, PubMed) | |---|---|---| | Content | Everything: reliable, unreliable, commercial, academic | Curated: peer-reviewed journals, books, proceedings | | Ranking | Relevance algorithm (popularity, recency, SEO) | Relevance to search terms (no SEO manipulation) | | Quality control | None -- the user must evaluate | Pre-filtered by editorial/peer review process | | Coverage | Broad but shallow | Deep within specific disciplines | | Best for | Starting exploration, current events, popular sources | In-depth research, scholarly evidence, primary studies |

Source Evaluation Frameworks

CRAAP Test

| Criterion | Key questions | |---|---| | Currency | When published? Updated? Is currency important for this topic? | | Relevance | Does it address your question? At the right level (not too basic, not too advanced)? | | Authority | Who created it? What are their credentials? Is the publisher reputable? | | Accuracy | Is it supported by evidence? Can claims be verified? Are there errors? | | Purpose | Why was it created? To inform, persuade, sell, entertain? Is the purpose declared? |

SIFT Method (Caulfield, 2019)

A faster, action-oriented framework:

| Step | Action | |---|---| | Stop | Before reading, pause. Do not engage until you know what you are looking at. | | Investigate the source | Who created this? What is their reputation? Check Wikipedia, organizational "About" pages. | | Find better coverage | Is the claim covered by sources you already trust? Look for independent reporting. | | Trace claims to the original | Follow citations to their source. Does the original say what the citing source claims? |

Lateral Reading

Professional fact-checkers do not evaluate a source by reading it carefully (vertical reading). They immediately leave the source and check what others say about it (lateral reading). This escapes the source's self-presentation and provides independent assessment.

Practical steps:

1. Open a new tab.
2. Search for the source/author/organization.
3. Read what independent sources say about their reliability.
4. Return to the original only after you know its reputation.

Media Literacy

News Literacy

News comes in many forms with different levels of reliability:

| Type | Characteristics | Reliability | |---|---|---| | Reported news | Original reporting, named sources, editor oversight | High (not infallible) | | Opinion/editorial | Argues a position, labeled as opinion | Varies -- evaluate the argument | | Analysis | Expert interpretation of events | Varies -- check the analyst's track record | | Aggregation | Repurposes others' reporting | Only as good as the original source | | Sponsored content | Paid by an advertiser, may look like news | Low -- the funder's interest shapes the content | | Misinformation | False information shared without intent to deceive | Unreliable | | Disinformation | False information deliberately created to deceive | Dangerous |

Algorithmic Curation and Filter Bubbles

Social media algorithms optimize for engagement, not accuracy or breadth. This creates filter bubbles (Pariser, 2011) where users see information that confirms their existing views and rarely encounter opposing perspectives. Critical information literacy requires:

• Awareness that your feed is curated, not neutral
• Active seeking of diverse sources and perspectives
• Skepticism of content that triggers