A key commonality within the holistic models of IL is the connection between IL and critical thinking within the learning process to support independent, lifelong learning (Andretta, 2006; Bruce, 2008; Bundy, 2004; D’Angelo, 2002; Godwin, 2006; Lupton, 2004; Martin, 2013; Phillips & Bond, 2004; Secker & Coonan, 2011a). Critical thinking is recognised as purposeful, reasoned, and goal- directed learning to support problem-solving, reasoning, and decision-making (Phillips & Bond, 2004). In making the connection between IL and critical thinking, Weiler (2005) argued that “critical thinking is crucial to the learning process, to cognitive development and to effective information seeking” (p. 47). Because critical thinking is essential for determining the value of information and using it effectively (D’Angelo, 2002; Godwin, 2006; Phillips & Bond, 2004), it is a primary concern for university students and instructors.
The increased focus on evaluation and critical awareness through IL to support the research and learning process is a key theme emerging in the new millennium (Bird, McInerney & Mohr, 2011; Bruce, 2008; Bundy, 2004; Coonan, 2011; Ladbrook & Probert 2011; Snavely, 2008). Effective source selection is determined by understanding the relevance of a source for a particular task and knowing what to reject (Head & Eisenberg, 2010). Yet, evaluating sources and synthesising them into written assessments seems to create challenges for university students (Asher, Duke, & Wilson, 2012). This can often be seen in first-year students’ reference lists with heavy reliance on websites as a major reference source (Middle States Commission on Higher Education, 2003).
The need to develop an awareness of effective ways to evaluate information is especially important in light of the complexity and abundance of information available through the internet, and the difficulty students have in determining the validity and credibility of electronic sources (Brabazon, 2006b; Coonan, 2011). Students often struggle to distinguish popular from scholarly information on the internet (McCartin & Feid, 2001) and the diversity and breadth of online material inevitably creates issues of quality (Dalgleish & Hall, 2000, p. 112). Brabazon (2006b) argues that universities need to (re)teach how to evaluate quality to
limit unquestioning selection and acceptance of information sourced via Google. She stresses that “finding information is not synonymous with understanding information” (p. 163) and increased access to information does not necessarily promote high quality research and writing. As the volume of information available online continues to increase, random internet searching for sources and selection based on accessibility will remain key concerns for tertiary instructors.
Ladbrook and Probert’s (2011) study in NZ secondary schools suggest students’ lack of critical evaluation may stem from secondary education. Ladbrook and Probert’s study investigated current IL practice in three NZ schools and cited the Education Review Office (2004) findings that IL was under-developed in schools, particularly secondary schools. While the NZ School Curriculum (2007) seeks to create effective users of communication tools, critical and creative thinkers, and active seekers, users and creators of knowledge, evidence in this study suggested few schools were explicitly and systematically implementing an IL process model across the curriculum. Hipkins (2005, as cited in Ladbrook & Probert, 2011) found students understood research to be no more than “information retrieval and repackaging” (p. 27). Therefore, Ladbrook and Probert argue that current pedagogy in NZ high schools they observed seems to be failing to support students towards critical IL competencies.
Another key concern connected to evaluation and critical awareness of information is that tertiary students use scholarly information because instructors demand it (Latham & Gross, 2012), and not because they see the inherent value in such sources. To increase the use of quality information sources, some instructors specify the types of sources students should access, with the aim of helping students identify relevant scholarly sources in their discipline (Davis, 2003, as cited in Middle States Commission for Higher Education, 2003). However, Fister (2012) argues that demanding students use a prescribed number of scholarly sources reduces the complexity of IL:
We are instructing students to do what comes easily – use books and you are safe, limit database searches to scholarly articles. We aren’t
teaching students to think, we are teaching them to judge books by their covers. (para. 4)
Librarians may struggle to shift the focus to source evaluation because selecting quality, relevant sources depends on purpose and context (Secker, Price & Boden, 2007). Students, too, may lack the strategies and disciplinary knowledge to make considered choices based on critical evaluation of sources. Coonan (2011) acknowledges that:
expert researchers have gained an understanding of practical, theoretical and epistemological issues in their field, rely on multiple vehicles of current awareness, including networks of other experts – known both personally and virtually – to maintain and develop their expertise in the field. In contrast, beginning students have no expert networks, no experience base in the field and have yet to build an understanding of their discipline and its structures. (p. 10)
A dominant method of instruction on evaluating sources in traditional university library sessions is asking students to consider key criteria commonly found in checklists indicating quality and relevance (Meola, 2004; Metzger, 2007), with the common criteria including currency, authority, evidence, reliability, bias, and coverage. Various evaluation checklists are easily accessible on the internet, for example, the CARS Checklist4 (Credibility, Accuracy, Reasonableness, Support) (Harris, 2010), or are provided through university learning support centres or libraries. The key problem with such checklists is that they focus on author, authority and currency over the context in which the information was created, and pose questions students may lack the background knowledge to answer (Meola, 2004), or which students approach as a ‘yes or no’ response. So, for example, students may reject an older source because it is not current, even if the source remains valued, relevant and widely cited in the discipline (Meola, 2004).
An important factor connecting to how much effort students put into evaluating information, particularly from the internet, is motivation to select quality information (Meola, 2004, Metzger, 2007; Thompson, 2003). Meola suggests that students are not as gullible as librarians and educators believe, and they are capable of judging bias and dubious website but “will choose the easy way
4
http://www.mhhe.com/socscience/english/allwrite3/seyler/ssite/seyler/se03/cars.mhtml
27
out if their grade does not suffer” (p. 335). Despite the expectation of quality source use, students may remain focused on content or getting the required number of sources (Thompson, 2003), rather than on credibility or reliability, if educators do not penalise the use of poor quality sources (Metzger, 2007).