When we began discussing our vision for a collection on information literacy (IL), our initial conversations revolved around the incredible amount of scholarship and practice that already existed in both Writing Studies (WS) and in Library/Information Science (LIS).Yet, while librarians, writing faculty, and other disciplinary faculty had presented and/or published together, there was still not enough cross-over in disciplinary literature addressed to both faculty and librarian audiences.One of our goals for this collection, then, was to bring together the rich scholarship and pedagogy from multiple perspectives and disciplines to provide a broader and more complex understanding of IL in the second decade of the 21st century.Further, we hoped that a collection that bridged the disciplinary divide would advance the notion of shared responsibility and accountability for the teaching, learning, and research of IL in the academy: faculty, librarians, administrators, and external stakeholders such as accrediting agencies and the businesses/industries that employ our graduates.As we issued the call for contributions for the collection, our view of IL was guided by the Association of College & Research Libraries (ACRL) Information Literacy Standards for Higher Education (IL Standards) which defines IL as the ability to "determine the extent of information needed, access the needed information effectively and efficiently, evaluate information and its sources critically, incorporate selected information into one's knowledge base, use information effectively to accomplish a specific purpose, understand the economic, legal and social issues surrounding the use of information, and access and use information legally" (ACRL, 2000).Widely cited since its formal approval by the ACRL Board, the IL Standards has seen widespread acceptance by librarians, faculty, administrators, and accrediting bodies.As a result, librarians and faculty have created strong partnerships to develop pedagogy related to IL and the IL Standards have been adapted to meet disciplinary contexts.However, the IL Standards also have faced considerable criticism as both research and practice began to highlight and illustrate the shortcomings of a standards-and competencies-based approach.Critiques of the IL Standards, theoretically and research-based, have focused on the de-contextualized nature of standards that potentially emphasize a prescribed set of skills.Research Information literacy is the set of integrated abilities encompassing the reflective discovery of information, the understanding of how information is produced and valued, and the use of information in creating new knowledge and participating ethically in communities of learning.(ACRL, 2015) The adoption of the Framework for IL presents a challenge to all of us who research, teach, and assess IL.The use of the word "framework" intentionally emphasizes that the document is a structure to set the context for ongoing discussions and collaborations between librarians, faculty, administrators, and other stakeholders to connect and to partner for the development of IL programs that are relevant within each program and institution.The Framework for IL further challenges all of us involved in IL to learn about and envision what threshold concepts and metaliteracy mean in order to develop pedagogy that facilitates transfer of learning across contexts as well as how these concepts influence and shape research studies and projects related to IL.As the Task Force worked, releasing drafts for discussion, the Framework for IL was received positively by many librarians, who began using it to discuss and shape instruction programs even before its approval by the ACRL Board.While it would be easy to view the Framework for IL as a marked shift away from the IL Standards, in reality it is an evolution based on nearly 20 years of research and practice.As this collection moved to fruition, we realized, as editors, how much of an exigence the Framework for IL was and continued to be.Themes that authors explore in chapters mirror the threshold concepts and metaliteracy principles that ground the Framework for IL.The scope of the collection began as an attempt to bridge disciplinary boundaries, which is also a goal of the Framework for IL.As we read the submissions, a further vision for the collection emerged as a bridge between past/current knowledge and the future.As such, we defer to Rolf Norgaard and Caroline Sinkinson, the authors of the first chapter, who refer to the Roman god Janus as a potential presiding deity for their essay.We would suggest that Janus, with one face looking back and one looking to the future, further serves as the presiding deity for the collection as a whole: one face looking back and celebrating past and current work on IL and one looking forward to the continued evolution of IL ORGANIZATION OF THE COLLECTIONWithin the dual exigencies of bridging boundaries and creating connections past and future, the chapters presented in this collection facilitate an understanding of how IL has evolved and continues to evolve.Chapters address the core concepts articulated in the Framework for IL and demonstrate the relevance of it to higher education; indeed, chapters emphasize how the foundational underpinnings of the Framework for IL have been part of our understanding and work in IL, even if unarticulated.Chapters also address related threshold concepts, metacognition, large-scale research studies, programmatic and institutional efforts to institutionalize IL, and pedagogical innovations.Above all, this collection should be viewed as part of the conversation about IL as we adapt to and implement the Framework for IL.In that spirit, the book begins with a conversation between WS and LIS as Rolf Norgaard and Caroline Sinkinson engage in dialogue to look back over more than a decade of teaching and learning related to IL and ponder the future.To continue and build upon the dialogue, we have organized the collection into four sections, each representing a core focus area of IL.Section I situates IL and provides us with understanding of how and why IL is a contextual concept based on threshold concepts and metaliteracy.Section II presents results of research projects which help us to further our understanding of IL and of student learning related to it, particularly the threshold concept of Scholarship as Conversation.Section III explores the already rich collaborations taking place to define IL locally within programs and institutions and to define shared responsibility for IL.Chapters in Section IV describe pedagogical strategies and evaluation of them.This section ends by returning us back to the notion of conversation and collaboration between WS and LIS.Finally, in the afterword, Trudi Jacobson wraps up the collection by reminding us of the complex information landscape we and our students now find ourselves in and how the Framework for IL and metaliteracy are providing us with a new lens to facilitate our teaching and learning of IL as shared responsibility. SECTION I. SITUATING INFORMATION LITERACYAuthors in Section I bring together past theory and practice to situate IL for us by articulating what the Framework for IL means for the evolution of IL pedagogy, research, and assessment.Just over a decade ago, in one of the few notable pieces of scholarship to cross disciplinary boundaries, Rolf Norgaard contextualized IL Section II focuses on large-scale research projects that are contributing to our understanding of IL, in particular, our understanding of students' ability to use information to construct knowledge.The threshold concept of Scholarship as Conversation is clearly evident in the work of these researchers and scholars.Sandra Jamieson leads off Section II with a discussion of results of Citation Project research concerning the kinds of sources students selected for source-based papers in first-year writing, how they incorporated them, and the implications for IL.Following this chapter, Katt Blackwell-Starnes reports on the results of a pilot study for the LILAC Project revealing the impact of students' focus on final product rather than process when completing a research project.
Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 16 citations exist upstream.