---
name: information-literacy
description: Skills for finding, evaluating, and using information effectively and ethically across print and digital sources. Covers the research process (question formulation, source identification, evaluation, synthesis, citation), digital literacy (search strategies, database navigation, Boolean operators), source evaluation frameworks (CRAAP, SIFT, lateral reading), media literacy (news literacy, algorithmic curation, filter bubbles), ethical use of information (plagiarism, citation, fair use, intellectual property), and reading across multiple sources to build knowledge. Use when conducting research, evaluating sources, navigating digital information environments, teaching research skills, or addressing plagiarism and citation.
type: skill
category: reading
status: stable
origin: tibsfox
modified: false
first_seen: 2026-04-12
first_path: examples/skills/reading/information-literacy/SKILL.md
superseded_by: null
---
# 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 strong emotional reactions (engagement bait)
- Understanding that virality does not correlate with accuracy
## Ethical Use of Information
### Plagiarism
Plagiarism is presenting someone else's words, ideas, or data as your own. It includes:
- **Direct copying** without quotation marks or attribution
- **Paraphrasing** without attribution (changing the words but taking the idea)
- **Self-plagiarism** -- resubmitting your own previous work as new
- **Mosaic plagiarism** -- patching together phrases from multiple sources
Plagiarism is not just an academic infraction. It is a failure of intellectual honesty that undermines the trust on which all knowledge-sharing depends.
### Citation Purpose
Citation serves three functions:
1. **Credit** -- acknowledges the intellectual work of others
2. **Evidence** -- allows readers to verify your claims by checking your sources
3. **Conversation** -- positions your work within the ongoing scholarly dialogue
### Fair Use
Not all use of copyrighted material requires permission. Fair use (in U.S. law) considers:
- **Purpose** -- educational, critical, and transformative uses are favored
- **Nature** -- factual works are more freely usable than creative works
- **Amount** -- small portions are more defensible than large ones
- **Effect** -- use that does not replace the market for the original is favored
## Reading Across Multiple Sources
The highest-order information literacy skill is constructing knowledge from multiple sources that may disagree. This requires:
1. **Identifying each source's contribution** -- what unique information or perspective does it provide?
2. **Mapping the conversation** -- where do sources agree, disagree, or talk past each other?
3. **Weighing evidence quality** -- which sources have stronger evidence, better methodology, more relevant expertise?
4. **Constructing your own position** -- informed by all sources but owned by you, with explicit reasoning for your conclusions.
## When to Use This Skill
- Conducting research at any level
- Evaluating sources for credibility and relevance
- Teaching research and search strategies
- Navigating digital information environments
- Addressing plagiarism and citation practices
- Building media literacy
## When NOT to Use This Skill
- For reading comprehension strategies -- use reading-comprehension
- For literary interpretation -- use literary-analysis
- For argument analysis in a single text -- use critical-reading
- For vocabulary instruction -- use vocabulary-development
- For decoding and phonics -- use phonics-decoding
## Cross-References
- **achebe agent:** Perspective analysis in sources -- whose voice is represented, whose is absent? Achebe's critical practice extends naturally to evaluating the diversity and representativeness of research sources.
- **rosenblatt agent:** The reader as active constructor of meaning. Rosenblatt's transactional theory applies to research reading: the researcher does not passively receive source information but actively constructs understanding from it.
- **clay agent:** Assessment and scaffolding of research skills at developmental levels.
- **critical-reading skill:** Source evaluation overlaps significantly. Critical-reading focuses on evaluating individual texts; information-literacy focuses on finding, comparing, and synthesizing across multiple sources.
- **reading-comprehension skill:** Comprehension of individual sources is prerequisite to synthesis across them.
## References
- Association of College & Research Libraries. (2016). *Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education*. American Library Association.
- Caulfield, M. (2019). *Web Literacy for Student Fact-Checkers*. Self-published (Creative Commons).
- Pariser, E. (2011). *The Filter Bubble: What the Internet Is Hiding from You*. Penguin Press.
- Wineburg, S., & McGrew, S. (2019). Lateral reading and the nature of expertise: Reading less and learning more when evaluating digital information. *Teachers College Record*, 121(11), 1-40.
- Wineburg, S., McGrew, S., Breakstone, J., & Ortega, T. (2016). *Evaluating Information: The Cornerstone of Civic Online Reasoning*. Stanford History Education Group.