E—Reference Contextand Discoverability inLibraries:Issues and ConceptsSue PolankaWright State University Libraries, USA

AtI$

____

I Information Science IREFERENCE

Chapter 6Hidden Greenlands:

Learning, Libraries, and Literacyin the Information Age

Frank MenchacaCengage Learning, USA

ABSTRACT

This chapter considers the role of libraries and educational publishers in the information age. Studiesshow that, for most college and university students, the triggerfor research remains the classroom assignment. Tasks associatedwith specc learning objectives—writing apaper preparing an interpretivereading, engaging in historical or statistical analysis—still motivate students to engage in research. Whathas changed is the fact that students no longer rely on librarians, libraries, or traditional publishersfor information resources. They go directly to search engines. Today ‘s learners are, however, quicklyoverwhelmed and, despite being “digital natives, “struggle to evaluate information and organize it tobuild ideas. The ability ofpublishers, librarians, and libraries to address this issue will determine theirrelevancy in the 21x1 century and, perhaps, the success ofstudents themselves in the information age. Thischapter reviews a wide variety of literature and experiential data on information literacy, findability,metadata, and use of library resources andproposes how all players can re-think their roles.

DOl: 10.4018/978-1-61 350-308-9.chOO6

Copyright © 2012, 1G1 Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of lOt Global is prohibited.

Hidden Greenlands

INTRODUCTION

Recently, during what is usually one of theduller stretches of a transatlantic flight—whenpassengers obliterate the hours with sleep, read,or escape tedium watching movies on postcard-sized screens—the captain addressed the cabinand alerted us we were in for something unusual:Greenland, typically hidden under a misty shellof clouds, was fully visible.Maybe it is axiomatic in post-September 11”

times thatwarning ofanything out ofthe ordinary,particularly from a pilot mid-flight, grabs our attention. In any case, within moments, passengersclustered around the tiny, oval windows, strainingto take in the event.And an event it was: soaring mountain peaks

and precipitous slopes. Between them, giant,grooved fjords stretched down to scraps of land:brown, with a little green at the fringes.

I remembered an article describing the expansion of Greenland’s arable land, a consequenceof shorter winters, higher temperatures, and othereffects ofglobalwarming (Trautfetter, 2006). Andnow, here it was as part of a scene of collidinghistories: ice dating back to preh istory, next to 21St

century agriculture, itselfa result of industrial ization begun in the 1800s.The incident revealed something paradoxical.I realized how little I knew about the place,

and, how little reliable knowledge I had aboutclimate change. I should, I decided, start keepingtabs on Greenland.More than a year of search engine alerts and

Really Simple Syndication (RSS) feeds later, myinquiry seemed well;timed: Greenland had risenfrom obscurity to topicality in much the way itappeared out ofthe mist on thattransatlantic flight.OnNovember 13,2010, forexample, TheNew

York limes reported thatGreenland had become noless than a locus ofmajor global warming study.Scientists take the temperature ofthe surroundingocean to gauge the rate ofmelting in glaciers. Their

conclusions are stunning in their implications aswell in their inconclusiveness:

researchershave recentlybeen startledto see bigchanges unfold in both GreenlandandAntarctica.

As a result of recent calculations that take thechanges into account, many scientists now saythat sea level is likely to rise perhaps threefeetby 2100 — an increase that, should it come topass, wouldpose a threat to coastal regions theworld over.

And the calculations suggest that the rise couldconceivably exceedsixfeet, whichwouldput thousands ofsquare miles of the American coastlineunder water andwouldprobably displace tens ofmillions ofpeople in Asia (Gillis, 2010).

One degree oftemperature change or several?Three feet of water level increase, or six? Theimplications ofthe numerical differences, in a human context, are tiny: whether to take a sweater ornot; wading in up to the knees or swimming. In aglobal context, overtime, the impact is enormous.The indeterminacy of the data, the range of

their potential consequences, should make usask: which other unknown uncertainties are outthere influencing our future? How many hidden Greenlands do we pass over unthinkinglyuntil to notice them is to be shocked by our ownignorance of their impact? How do we interpretinformation in shifting contexts? And how do weconvey the urgency of these issues to learners inthe 21 St century?

I. TRUTH 2.0

As consumers and producers of educational publications, such questions ought to preoccupy us.The answers go straight to how human beings willlearn and flourish in the information age.

Hidden Greenlands

We live in a world where communicationstechnology makes information instantaneouslyaccessible. The sheer volume and availabilityhave had, on the one hand, a revolutionary anddemocratizing effect. The collections of some ofthe world’s most elite libraries now yield theirtreasures in a simple, online search. Any usercan monitor scientific research—that may haveprofound future implications—as it unfolds in thelaboratory or field through OpenAccesswebsites.Even an organization likeWikiLeaks, with its controversial (some would say irresponsible) onlinedistribution of sensitive diplomatic documents,can be seen as a safeguard against foundation oftheMinitrue (“Ministry ofTruth”)—whatGeorgeOrwell called the government agency chargedwithdisseminating the one, “official” version of thetruth in his novel, 1984. In the digital age, then,we are poised to be more informed, less easilymanipulated, and more autonomous.Aren’t we?More than 60 years after Orwell published

his dystopian vision of society, information authoritarianism —a single, centrally distributedversion of the truth— hardly appears to be ourthreat. We seem to be at risk, rather, from Truth1.0, 1.2, 2.0—multiple versions of facts, endlessiterations ofinformation, the data slipstream fromwhich it feels increasingly difficult to fix verifiable knowledge. Instead of conferring power, asurfeit of information seems to leave us powerless. Writes poet Hoagland (2010, p. 40), “. . .theswamp of excess information in which we eachday swim, and our paradoxical lack of influenceon that world—they make us ill. We have communication sickness.”

II. PROJECT INFORMATIONLITERACY

What effect does this have on education? TwoUniversity of Washington researchers, AlisonJ. Head, and Michael B. Eisenberg, have been

engaged in an ongoing, comprehensive study—Project Information Literary (PIL)—of the waysin which college students find, evaluate, and usedigital information to perform assignments andto learn.“[A] risk-averse strategy based on efficiency

and predictability in order to manage and controlthe information. .. .“ (Head, 2010, p.3) is how PILdescribes students’ approach to research in theNovember 2010 report, “Truth Be Told’: HowCollege Students Evaluate and Use Informationin the Digital Age.” The ironies should be immediate: in the digital age, students narrow, notexpand their inquiry; at a time when new dataoverthrows old in hours, even minutes, studentsseek continuity, predictability.Think of the narratives, tapped out covertly

on Twitter, of crackdown during the 2009 Iranianelections; the photos ofAbuGhraib prisoner abuse;the index to climate change waiting to be read inGreenland’s ice. Information does not play it safeor straight with us; yet students want to play itstraight and safe with information. Why?The result of8,353 college students’ responses

to surveys on 25 U.S. campuses, PIL’s reportprovides insights—by turns disheartening, encouraging, and surprising—on where librariansand information publishers fall short in enablingknowledge creation—and how we can transformit—in the information age.PIL shows that today’s students begin informa

tion-seeking primarily with classroom materials,well ahead of the library, and, interestingly, theimmersive Web 2.0 worlds many associate—perhaps falsely—as natural to “digital natives.”(Ibid., p.3) That course readings are the first stopin research is unremarkable.Notable, however, arethe next steps students take, as this chart (lbii., p.7)—a comparison between 2009 and 2010 surveydata—demonstrates. (See Figure 1)The dual points ofdeparture in investigation—

course readings and search engines-includingGoogle—are predictable: they are the most readily accessible and familiar. Other points were

63

Hidden Greenlands

Figure 1. Project Information Literacy Progress Report, 2010. Used with permission.

news: scholarly research databases are more oftengo-to options than Wikipedia. Print or electronicencyclopedias receive priority over blogs.For a publisherofreference materials for librar

ies, the data ring bells in alarm as much as celebration. Students distinguish between value-addedresources publishers produce--which librariesevaluate and purchase--and the unmediated, opencommunity constructions ofWikipedia. And theyseek the guidance oftheir instructors in answeringresearch questions. Troubling is that librarians—who should be the source of information expertiseon campus—rank just above the anything-goesworld of blogs in students’ research hierarchy.PIL data suggest multiple factors contribute

to this situation. Students demonstrate a clear,if underdeveloped, appreciation for informationliteracy: the ability to differentiate and weigh thevalue of diverse types of information to createnew ideas.

Students in the sample took little atface value andreportedtheywerefrequent evaluators ofinformation culledfrom the Web and to a lesser extent,the campus library. More often than anything

else, respondents consideredwhether informationwas up-to-date and currentwhen evaluating Webcontent (77%) and library materials (67%) forcourse work (ibid., p. 3).

Students take critical reading of informationseriously and identify currency as an indicatorof relevancy; but in the 24-hour news cycle, currency is hardly a proxy for information integrityor value. Yet on these counts as well, studentsseem cognizant of other important factors, perFigure 2. (Ibid., p. 11).Students consider author credentials and source

(URL) in assessing information. Interestingly,interface design closely follows these. It wouldbe misleading, however, to assume that studentsmean they favor only attractive websites. Good,user-centered information design—particularlywhat Edward Tufte calls the visual display ofquantitative information (Tufte, 2001) --may bea key indicator of information’s value to today’svisually-oriented learners. Consider these criteria(Head and Eisenberg, 2010, pg. 15) reported applying to library resources. (See Figure 3)

98%Course Readings

Search engines, including Google

Scholarly Research Oatabases

Instructors

Wikipedia

errtmern Web Sites

Classmates

Personal Collection

Library Shelves

Encyclopedias (online or print)

92%

96%88%I 94%

53%68%

73%85%

75%76%

65%72%

58%70%

69%53%

53%62%

2010 RSSultS•2009 Results

Friends 49%58%

Librarians 30%

Blogs 15%28%

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%P.uolo .. ,.ok.d f,o.,, ,,we fr.qo.M to toW fr.q., ,uo.o 0104W., .,o work4.upooo.o of .koot .tooya oft.nw,d 04.,, eowtot.dfrdo. “.w.t.vo°°..

64

Hidden Greenlands

Chart quality ranks just below currency inimportance. The look of information signifies itsworth and utility to students. Note: To the placement of “different viewpoints acknowledged” ina closely-linked chain ofcurrency and chart quality.

62%54%

62%44%

61%39%

59%32%

59%42%

54%

III. FROM DEFINING AND FINDINGTO DESIGN AND INTENT

The findings urge questions on publishers andlibrarians: does the emphasis we place on visualrepresentation ofinformation—content design—match the priority students assign to it in evalua

Figure 3. Project Information Literacy Progress Report, 2010. Usedwith permission.

67%779’

57%61%

50%59%

46%59%

42%54%

Figure 2. Project Information Literacy Progress Report, 2010. Usedwith permission.

54%

48%

49%

56%

77%

7396

71%

71%

Currency (e.g., publication date)

Author’s credentials

URL (e.g., Web domain)

Interface design

External linkage (if links erost)

Fami)arity from previous use

Heard about site before

Chart quality (if they exist)

Author credits others for ideas

Different viewpoints acknowledged

Bibliography Included

Mentioned by librarian

66%43%

23%

25%UCOursC work 11%

Personal use 0% 25% 5096 75% 100%

Results are ranked from most frequent to least frequent evaluation techniques respondents used for course work (lopbars). £valuatlon techniques forpersonal use (bottom bars) do not conespond to the same older as those for coursework. Responses of elmost atways and bflen have been conflated into a new category of Yrequent use.

Currency (e.g., pubtcation date)

Chart quality (if they exist)

Different viewpoints acknowledged

Author credits others for ideas

Bibliography Included

Author’s credentials

Familiarity from previous use

Heard of source before

Publisher of soutce

V V Mentioned by librariano Library rroteristooweb Content

40%

59%

29%

22%

18%25%

73%

63%

82%

72%

0% 25% 5096 75% 100%

Ranted (mm yeast frequent to toast frequent .sskwhye, tedwiques P.eqowae. of ibned Cbay? end ‘ntao las. been castlelad a.sew retogo,yolfriqu.nt us..

65

Hidden Greenlands

tion?And how effective are we in helping studentsunderstand the tendencies of online content?Libraries and publishers do show an increasing

awareness ofthe importance ofinformation designand user experience (UX). Cengage Learning, thecompany I work for, employs several UX teamsand integrates users in product conceptualization

• early on, through usability testing of design protôtypes. It is not unique in this regard. Librariesengage similar processes.For many years, moreover, Cengage’s Gale

imprint has published products like Opposing• Viewpoints in Context and Global Issues in ConIext, online databases predicated on explicitlydescribing and helping users compare and contrastthe positions taken by various information sources.The PIL results, however, say that students,

to become better researchers and learners, needpiblishers and librarians to go further in designand, for lack of a better term, information intent.Wè:need to see these not as extensions, but rathers:.parts of a new nucleus of our mission. This•hay require a fundamental change in our selfâo,nceptions.

- PIL report distinguishes between lower‘andhigher-order thinking skills. It associates the

•. friher with “procedural, memorized routines,techniques, and rules for conducting researchanäJinding information” (Ibid., p.37)—in otherwards, searching and retrieving. “[Ijnterpreting,synthesizing, and creatively manipulating abstract

• :.?PPs to generate new constructs, meanings,

iuteretations,

and knowledge,” (Ibid., p.37) con-• stitue higher-order competencies. It concludes:

Th’ survey findings suggest that the students in-bur sample considered themselvesfairly adept at

• ‘:;.Iower-orderingthinkingskillsforresearch: check.ingthepublication date ofan articlefor evaluativepurposes, finding citationsfor other sources in abibliography at the bottom ofa Wikipedia entry,Writi?igjapaperfrom an outline, coming up withseqrch4er, and so forth.

At the same time, the findings suggest that thestudents in our sample considered themselves tobe at a great disadvantage when asked to applysome ofthe higher-order thinking skillsfor information seeking and research, especially starting,defining and narrowing a research inquiry so itframedtheir entire researchprocess. (lbid., p. 37)

Publishers and librarians have, for much ofour histories, tended to focus on servicing theselower-order duties. We create, provision, organize,collect, and store information. We understand howfaculty and students want to use that information,but we have limited our role to guiding them to it,then leaving them to find answers. Less familiarto them are we as collaborators in formulatingquestions.As a reference publisher, for example, Cen

gage’s Gale imprint, even with its emphasis onviewpoints, has largely adhered to the traditionalview ofcontent that the originating theorists ofthemodern encyclopedia—Denis Diderot and otherfigures ofthe French Enlightenment—articulated:knowledge could be fixed, summarized, andsystematized. Encyclopedia articles, therefore,defined a topic. They communicated verifiedknowledge and an understanding of its place in ahierarchy, eschewing perspectives for reportage.Those would come from other sources readersencountered as they ascended a hierarchy andmoved from a broad base of facts to more refinedopinions and primary sources.On the one hand, this editorial policy has al

lowed reference publishers like Gale to aspire togoals of accuracy, balance, and authority. Andthese qualities warrant preservation, particularlyin the increasingly axe-grinding, partisan world ofmedia—satirized well by comedian-commentatorStephen Colbert’s term “truthiness’: truth thatcomes from gut, not from books” (MerriamWebsterOnline Dictionary. http://www.merriamwebster.com/info/O6words.htm), in other words:what I want you to believe, supported throughconviction, not substantiation.

Hidden Greenlands

On the other hand, it must be acknowledgedthat every piece ofcontent—no matter how muchit strives for neutrality—has a design upon the user,and an intent to influence. This has always beenso. The encyclopédistes ‘systemization ofknowledge, though beautiful in its pursuit of programmatic inquiry based on rationality and tolerance,also reflected a set of culturally, politically, andpersonally-determinedbeliefs and preconceptions.Today, the sheer volume ofavailable informationmeans we are inundated in obvious and subtlecalls to action, persuasions to what to think, say,and do. To become better informed citizens withgreater chances for success in the world are amongthose calls, no question. Consider, however, thisstatement--”In 2008, the advertising on Google’ssearch enginewas responsible for98 percent ofthecompany’s $22 billion in revenue” (Petersen, 2010,p. 60) —as a context even for tools like GoogleBooks, Google Scholar, YouTube, and GoogleEarth. These are all inarguably useful; they alsoexist in a matrix predicated, overwhelmingly, onselling you something. Publishers and librariesare just as compelled by commercial interests.Success in their educational missions is also notdivisible from commercial success. Referenceproducts that do not transmit knowledge fail;textbooks that cannot support student achievementwill not sell; unused libraries become unfundedones. Both publishers and librarians might havegreater chances at commercial and educationalsuccess in actively identi1iing the interpretationsand objectives nested within the information oceanaround our users.

We may define new relevancy for ourselvesin doing so. And we may be among those mostcapable ofdoing the job. Identifying informationintent is something that the massively-popular,socially-constructed Wikipediacannotdo, for example. In relying on amalgamation vs. authorship,a Wikipedia article necessarily distributes—evenatomizes—intent. This iswhyWikipedia is reliableand useful for quick look up but not preferable asa source for building ideas. Indeed, the success

of Wikipedia has opened the door for referencepublishers and libraries to create and engage users with higher-order informational content thatovertly questions itself, as well as other content,teaching literacy. In this sense, Jimmy Wales’srevolutionary, online encyclopedia has raised, notlowered, the bar on reference publishing. Fortheirpart, librarians can constitute a qualitative alternative to search engines—often preferred by studentsover library resources—by helping students useinformation, to articulate the questions they wantto ask, ahead of guiding them to answers.The benefits of this are well documented.

The British Library, in cooperation with the JointInformation Sharing Committee (JISC) issued areport in 2008, “The Information Behaviour ofthe Researcher ofthe Future.” The report is basedupon comprehensive study ofliterature on researchin the digital age, as well as on mining of usagelogs from both institutions. Their conclusions linkdirectly improved student outcomes with activeengagement by educators—librarians, teachers,and parents—in research.

There are two particularly powerful messagesemerging from recent research. When the topand bottom quartiles ofstudents — as defined bytheir information literacy skills - are compared, itemerges that the top quartile reportamuch higherincidence ofexposure to basic library skillsfromtheir parents, in the school library, classroomor public library in their earlier years. It seemsthat a new divide is opening up in the US, withthe better-equipped students taking the prizes ofbettergrades. At the lower end ofthe informationskills specfrum, the researchfinds that interventionat university age is too late: these students havealreadydevelopedan ingrainedcopingbehaviour:they have learned to ‘get by’ with Google (TheInformation Behaviour of the Researcher of theFuture, 2008, pg. 23).

Students who are trained in higher-order information skills receive better grades than those

Hidden Greenlands

who deal only with information in lower-order,search and find modes represented by searchengines. Yet in PIL’s findings, one of the keystakeholders poised to support student achievement—the librarian—has the lowest mind-shareamong students. Why is this so and how can thesituation be addressed?

IV. FINDABILITY AND BEYOND

In 2008, the not-for-profit research organization,Ithaka, issued “2006 Studies ofKey Stakeholdersin the Digital Transformation in Higher Education” (Schonfeld, 2006). The culmination of2000,2003, and 2006 academic faculty surveys, the2006 investigation also included librarians. Thatyear, a total of 4100 faculty and 350 librariansresponded. One specific objective was to testfaculty perceptions of libraries.Among the report’s findings was that faculty’s

perception that the library, as a “gateway to information,” was declining in importance.

The declining importance assignedto thegatewayrole is causefor concern ingeneral, andespeciallywhen considered by discipline. The importanceto faculty of this role has decreased across alldisciplines since 2003, most signjficantly amongscientists. While almost 80% of humanists ratethis role as very important, barely over 50% ofscientists do so. Beyond the differences betweenthese generaldisciplinarygroups, there also existsubstantialvariations by individual discipline, asdemonstrated by the perceptions ofeconomists.Between 2003 and2006, thepercentage ofeconomists indicating theyfound the library gatewayrole to be very important dropped almostfifteenpercentage points. In 2006, the percentage ofeconomists who believed this gateway role to bevery important was actually below the averagelevel ofscientists, falling to 48%.

The decreasing importance ofthisgateway role tofacuity is logical, given the increasingprominenceofnon-library discovery tools such as Google inthe last severalyears. Since 2003, the number ofscholars across disciplines who report startingtheir research at non-library discovery tools, either ageneralpurpose search engine or aspecficelectronic resource, has increased, andthe numberwho report starting in directly library-relatedvenues, either the library building or the libraryOPAC, has decreased. Despite the risingpopularity oftools like Google, overall, generalpurposesearch engines still slightly trail the OPAC as astarting pointfor research, and are well behindspecific electronic researchresources. This overallpicture, however, hides a number ofvariations bydiscipline; scientists typicallyprefer non-libraryresources, while humanists are more enthusiasticusers ofthe library (ibid., p. 6).

The Ithaka results echoed OCLC’s 2005 report, ‘Perceptions of Libraries and InformationResources.” (OCLC, 2005) The academic librarywas gradually being dis-intermediated by searchengines as the primary portal for research andinformation. Search engines and their affiliatedservices, such as Google Scholar, Google Books,et cetera seemed to be more effective in connecting researchers—students and faculty—to theinformation they needed. They library’s problemwas, therefore, one of findability within thosesearch engines.

In 2010, this statement still seems true. Libraries need to become more visible to students andresearchers where they perform their work. ThePIL results also support this. To help address thisproblem, Cengage’s Gale imprint has, for its part,produced applications (apps) for mobile devicessuch as the i-Phone, i-Pad, and others, under thebanner ofAccess My Library (AML). The AMLapps locate a device’s user and connect her withGale resources at the local school, public, andacademic library. In the instance ofpublic libraries,authentication is removed, and anyone can access

68

Hidden Greenlands

and use Gale online resources. We also began toexplore making Gale library resources availableto students and instructors via Learning Management Systems (LMS), such as Blackboard (Dunnand Menchaca, 2009).Today, however, none ofthose initiatives seems

adequate, and the assumption that search enginesand their services can be effective as alternativesto libraries, only by being more convenient, ringshollow. Looked at in the context of the PIL findings, findability of library resources on the Webis only one step, and a first one at that, in addressing the issues around information gatheringand learning in the 21st century. While criticallyimportant, making library resources findable is,fundamentally, another form of “storefronting:”placing information in front of learners withoutthe skills and context to enable them to turn itinto new concepts.Information findability without literacy will

make students neither smarter normore successful.The British Libraiy-JISC study, in fact, points tolittle change among digital natives’ capacities tointerpret and make use of information—readilyaccessible though it is in Google—when comparedto learners in earlier, non-digital generations.When the study applied a set of statements to amyth or reality test, based on research, it reportedthe following assumption and response:

They [Google generation users] are expertsearchers** *

Our verdict: This is a dangerous myth. Digitalliteracies and information literacies do not gohand in hand. A careful look at the literatureover the past 25 yearsfinds no improvement (ordeterioration) inyoungpeople s information skills(Information Behaviour 2008, pg. 20).

Digitally-enabled is not knowledge-enabled.And the digital librarymay bejust onemore corpusof information users must learn to underutilize inthe name of predictability and avoidance of risk.

Though a noble concept, the online public librarythat HarvardUniversity’sRobertDarnton and others have called for may be of limited consequenceto actual learning (Darnton, 2010).Librarians and publishers, performing in ex

panded and new roles, are required to help makea qualitative difference in research and learning.

V. TOWARD AN INTEGRATEDLITERACY

In 1987, years before the terms “World WideWeb” or “Internet” entered the vernacular, writingteacher Michael Kleine envisioned the library,on the eve of an assignment due date, as a placewhere students performed a kind of rough transplant operation: “lifting and transporting textualsubstance from one location, the library, to another,their teachers’ briefcases” (Bowles-Terry, Davis,Holliday, 2009, p. 226). They hunted quotations,excised those that sounded correct, and installedthem in papers. They were not analyzing, evaluating, interpreting, or speculating; in short, theywere not thinking or learning. A generation later,the night library is no longer a physical place; itis students’ Web browsers. As the British LibraryuSC research shows, their information-seekingbehavior has changed little, despite the fact thatthey live in an age predicated in every way, downto its name, on information. Seen in this context,the question writer Nicholas Carr asked ratherfamously in The Atlantic—”Is Google MakingUs Stupid” (Carr, 2008)—seems to miss a biggerquestion: Why hasn’t Google made us smarter?Writing in Reference & User Services Quar

terly, three librarian/writing instructors, MelissaBowles-Terry, Erin Davis, and Wendy Hollidayexamine reasons why students’ information skillsare deficient, and what can be done to improvethem. The authors indicate that the shortcomingsin information literacy (IL) may have less to dowith media (print or digital distribution) and more

69

Hidden Greenlands

to do with how librarians themselves are trainedand how writing is taught:

Many writing instructors and librarians stillconceive ofandpractice ILfrom a behavioralistframework. Behavioral theories of education,dominant in the 1950s and 60s, assume learningis basedonprecise, well-defined, andmeasurablebehaviors and rules. For IL, behaviorismfocuseson information sources andprocedures. Librarians teach the ‘correct ‘sources and the ‘correct’order in which to search those sources whilediscouraging ‘wrong ‘approaches, much like theavoidance of ‘text errors ‘in writing instruction(Bowles, 2009).

This step 1-2-3 approach, straight out of theindustrial age—think of Henry Ford’s assemblyline—seems particularly anachronistic in a digitalenvironment, where information is networked,and knowledge creation involves engaging multiple, simultaneous sources, all varied in theirpurpose and viewpoints. Searching for the correctanswers, moreover, becomes increasingly pointless in an environment where information is bothunmanageable and highly manipulable. To applythe vocabulary of the PIL study, students fail athigher-order thinking skills because they operatein lower-order paradigms, themselves reinforcedin outmoded educational practices.At atimewheninformation is as pervasive, plastic, and powerful as our own, this failure can be particularlydeleterious to students’ success at learning andin daily life.Instead, the authors call for a new kind of

information instruction that emphasizes the communities and contexts in which information isconstructed, received, and used. They describethis sociocultural approach as follows:

In this view, learning happens in a community ofpracticewhere novices learn to becomepractitioners andexperts mediate the information environment, guiding them toward information that the

social community values. Learning is conceivednot as a mastery offormal and generic skills,but as expandedparticipation in a community ofpractice or activity system. (Ibid., p. 226)

The authors cite case studies at Utah StateUniversity (USU), where librarians putthis theoryinto practice, in partnership with writing instructors, with groups of students in specific classes.Playing the role of “expert mediators”, the

librarian- instructors started by establishing learning objectives associated with the classes. Basedon those, they created a series of problem-basedlesson plans, involving the actual questions students were asked to research and upon which theywould write papers.Instead of pointing the students toward infor

mation sources where they could find the “right”answers, the librarian-instructors worked withthem to examine the qualities of the questionsthemselves.

• What position did the questions imply?• How did that position change, depending

on context?• Why might that position be held in one

context, not in another?• I-low is that position communicated?

For an English 2010 (Intermediate Writing)course, the procedure went as follows:

the class hadtodecide whetherfastfoodrestaurants shouldbe heldaccountablefor contributingto obesity in America. Students approached thequestionfrom various angles: the medical consequences ofeatingfastfood, the economics ofthefastfood business, and marketing—particularlyadvertising aimed at children. This provided aconcretefocus exploring how dfferent discoursecommunities operate, including the questions theyask, the information and knowledge they value,andwhere andhow theycommunicate within theircommunities andthegeneralpublic. (ibid., p. 227)

Hidden Greenlands

Librarian-instructors and students conductedbrainstorming sessions. The group consideredvarious viewpoints, and motivations for holdingthem, before ever searching for any information.The focus was not on finding answers, but ratheron accumulating sets of questions about questions, or hypotheses. The process was dialogic,and real time.The USU results were tellingly mixed. Some

students reported being uncomfortable with theless routinized approach. Howwould they know iftheywere finding the “right” answers?Atthe sametime, they appeared to grow more aware of theuncertainty of the information they encountered.In some cases, this spurred students on to deeper,more original research and thinking:

In theirfinalprojects, it became clear that somestudents were engaged in a more authentic researchpractice than simply reporting on existingwisdom. Afew students,for example, went beyondtextual sources by observing customers in afastfoodrestaurant. These studentsfocusedonmakingconnections between what they had personallyobservedandwhat theyfound in literature. Otherstudents, however were simply buildingbibliographies andmadefewer connections (lbid., p. 227).

While its effects on student behavior wereequivocal, the USU program hints at a new rolefor librarians—as “expert mediators” ofinformation, fuliy integrated in student learning—thatpublishers can support and enhance. This impliesnew forms ofpartnership, new uses oftechnology,and new ways of doing business.

Vi. “FACTS FOR WHATEVER”

Notable in the USU cases was that the librarian!instructors interacted with students on a whollypersonal level. This is highly engaging, but difficultto scale. On amulti-campus, state universitysystem, for example, an army of IL specialists

would be required—along with the funding—toreach the student population.Howcan students learn and utilize higher-order

information skills on a mass scale? This seemsan excellent problem for publishers to help solve.Currently, one of the more scalable resourcesfor distributing library materials to students isthe learning management system (LMS). LMSspermit librarians to disseminate course-relatedreadings and bibliographies. Some librarianseven hold LMS “office hours” when they areavailable to consult on research via chat. A largeuniversity, however, can operate several systemsat once, and LMSs do not provide a space for adialogic, qualitative exchange between librariansand students thattheUSU approach utilized, albeitin physical mode. The opportunity exists, then,for library and classroom publishers to producea user experience that enables, via software, thehigher-order thought processes identified in thePIL study, in a large-scale manner.The timing seems propitious. IPad, Kindle,

Nook, Android system-enabled slates: a growingnumber ofhardware tools are being used in learning and research. Meanwhile, Apple and othershave encouraged the development of apps to assist in an increasing number of discrete learningactivities in innovative ways. What is missing issoftware that integrates these apps with high quality research and learning materials, interoperateswith the LMS, and is delivered across a variety ofhardware: traditional personal computers (PCs) aswell as newer mobile devices and tablets.Meeting this challenge requires software

design and more. It means that publishers andlibrarians must directly link research materialswith learning content. If the impact of this linkis to drive qualitative vs. quantitative value—inother words, to amount to more than just morestuff—we need to think about metadata moreexpansively, as a form of content design. In theUSU case studies, librarians and instructors,posing questions, were engaged, essentially, inan information architecture activity. They were

Hidden Greenlands

Librarian-instructors and students conductedbrainstorming sessions. The group consideredvarious viewpoints, and motivations for holdingthem, before ever searching for any information.The focus was not on finding answers, but ratheron accumulating sets of questions about questions, or hypotheses. The process was dialogic,and real time.The USU results were tellingly mixed. Some

students reported being uncomfortable with theless routinized approach. Howwould they know ifthey were finding the “right” answers?At the sametime, they appeared to grow more aware of theuncertainly of the information they encountered.In some cases, this spurred students on to deeper,more original research and thinking:

In theirfinalprojects, it became clear that somestudents were engaged in a more authentic researchpractice than simply reporting on existingwisdom. Afew students,for example, went beyondtextual sources by observing customers in afastfoodrestaurant. These studentsfocusedonmakingconnections between what they had personallyobservedandwhat theyfound in literature. Otherstudents, however weresimplybuildingbibliographies andmadefewer connections (lbid.,p. 227).

While its effects on student behavior wereequivocal, the USU program hints at a new rolefor librarians—as “expert mediators” of information, fully integrated in student learning—thatpublishers can support and enhance. This impliesnew forms ofpartnership, new uses oftechnology,and new ways of doing business.

VI. “FACTS FOR WHATEVER”

Notable in the USU cases was that the librarian!instructors interacted with students on a whollypersonal level. This is highly engaging, but difficultto scale. On amulti-campus, state universitysystem, for example, an army of IL specialists

would be required—along with the funding—toreach the student population.Howcan students learn and utilize higher-order

information skills on a mass scale? This seemsan excellent problem for publishers to help solve.Currently, one of the more scalable resourcesfor distributing library materials to students isthe learning management system (LMS). LMSspermit librarians to disseminate course-relatedreadings and bibliographies. Some librarianseven hold LMS “office hours” when they areavailable to consult on research via chat. A largeuniversity, however, can operate several systemsat once, and LMSs do not provide a space for adialogic, qualitative exchange between librariansand students thatthe USU approach utilized, albeitin physical mode. The opportunity exists, then,for library and classroom publishers to producea user experience that enables, via software, thehigher-order thought processes identified in thePIL study, in a large-scale manner.The timing seems propitious. IPad, Kindle,

Nook, Android system-enabled slates: a growingnumber ofhardware tools are being used in learning and research. Meanwhile, Apple and othershave encouraged the development of apps to assist in an increasing number of discrete learningactivities in innovative ways. What is missing issoftware that integrates these apps with high quality research and learning materials, interoperateswith the LMS, and is delivered across a variety ofhardware: traditional personal computers (PCs) aswell as newer mobile devices and tablets.Meeting this challenge requires software

design and more. It means that publishers andlibrarians must directly link research materialswith learning content. If the impact of this linkis to drive qualitative vs. quantitative value—inother words, to amount to more than just morestuff—we need to think about metadata moreexpansively, as a form of content design. In theUSU case studies, librarians and instructors,posing questions, were engaged, essentially, inan information architecture activity. They were

Hidden Greenlands

making information about information: definingdetails about perspectives and positions, closelyexamining sources, and identifying qualitativedifferences among pieces of information. Ourmetadata currently is not robust enough to capturethese nuances. Dublin core records provide fordescriptive metadata. Yet even Dublin core recordsenhanced through the Gateway to EducationalMaterials (GEM) initiative get at only some ofthese qualities (Adamich, 2010). Librarian TomAdamich writes:

[A] useful addition to this GEM cataloging example is the inclusion ofthemediator beneficiary,and essential resources sections. The mediatordescribes educators who wouldprovide instruction or work together in instructional teams. Abeneficiary would be the educationalpopulationwho wouldbenefitfrom this instruction. Essentialresources lists [sic] useful tools thatwouldsupplement this lesson (Adamich, 2010).

Librarians and publishers can, together, beginto see metadata as a form of content design, amedium for identifying intent, source, usage,and other characteristics that reflect higher-orderthought activities. Another option is to allowstudents and faculty to contribute these aspects ina form of social construction: information usersproviding usage information.It is one thing to create software and infor

mation programs. It is another to acquire them.Integration of learning with research content alsoprompts consideration of new business models.Today, libraries purchase and provide researchcontent for the entire campus. Students are responsible for buying learning materials at theinstructor’s recommendation. Economic pressuresweigh on both activities. Libraries more oftenneed to demonstrate return on investmentthroughusage. And students increasingly seek lower-costalternatives to learning materials. Is it possible toconstruct a business model where an institutionextends the library’s buying model to classroom

materials, particularly ifthey are integrated? Ifso,libraries would be, in effect, subsidizing learningcontent. Would their budgets change to accommodate this? Would there be a charge-back to thestudent? Would the institution make a centralized purchase? Should pedagogical and researchinformation be purchased the way institutionspurchase, say, electricity—as an ongoing part ofthe infrastructure, to be used when, where, andhow it is needed?These are large questions. They require

publishers, librarians, provosts, and universityCFOs to engage in a dialog. Today, these factionslargely do not deal with each other. Meanwhile,economic pressures on both the library and thestudent prompt decisions and work-arounds that,if silo-ed, risk being ineffective, or worse, harmful to everyone’s shared mission—education.One large theme emerging from the PEL data isthat we may well be sending students out into aninformation age under-equipped to succeed. Aknowledge economy depends on workers whocan quickly and critically evaluate informationand synthesize often highly-changeable data intosustainable, executable ideas, products, and services in all kinds ofbusinesses. “Satisficing” withwhat search engines point to will surely not do.

In addition to enabling workers in a neweconomy, publishers and librarians have a role incontributing to an information literate citizenry.Many sources of information were used to supportthe Bush administration’s decision to invade Iraqand eradicate weapons of mass destruction, forexample. Arguably missing was the applicationofjudgmenr to those sources: were they accurate?Could they be trusted? What motivations did theysupport? At a time when there are, to borrow aphrase from Radiohead’s Thom Yorke, “facts forwhatever,” a population adept at critiquing information is less likely to fall for whatever.The research discussed throughout this chapter

indicates that in nearly every aspectofeducation—libraries, publishers, research, learning—changefrom without is already underway. Change from

Hidden Greenlands

within is needed. Doing anything less would be Lanier, J. (2010). You are not agadget. NewYork,treat the future as a “hidden Greenland”—some- NY: Knopf.thing which we traverse blindly.

MacNeely, I. F., &Wolverton, L. (2010). Reinventing knowledge: FromAlexandria to the Internet.New York, NY: Norton.REFERENCESTrautfetter, 0. (2006, August 30). Arctic harvest:

Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (2000). The social life Global warming a boon for Greenland’s farm-of information. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Busi- ers. Der Spigel Online International. Retrievedness School Press. from http://www.spiegel.de/internationall spieCarr, N. (2010). The shallows: What the Internet gelJO, 151 8,434356,00.htmlis doing to our brains. New York, NY: Norton. Wright, A. (2008). Glut: Mastering informationGorz, A. (2010). The immaterial. Ithaca, NY: through the ages. Ithaca, NY: Cornell UniversitySeagull Books. Press.

Head, A. 3., & Eisenberg, M. B. (2010). ProjectInformation Literacyprogress report: “Truth betold”: How college students evaluate and useinformation in the digital age. The InformationSchool, University of Washington. November1, 2010.