Identifying and Understanding Valid Sustainability Information: the Crossroads of Evidence-Based Practice, Science Literacy, and Information Literacy.
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.29173/istl1532Abstract
Obtaining reliable information is essential to forming a balanced understanding of the scope and complexity of environmental sustainability, and it is essential for effective participation, decision-making, and research in sustainability-related activities. While the ACRL Standards for Information Literacy (2000) are a good guiding principle for obtaining needed information, they must be applied in conjunction with other standards and principles in order for students to obtain all the necessary skills to become information literate, lifelong learners. Though they come from traditionally unrelated fields, the principles of evidence-based practice mirror the ACRL standards, and applying these methods to sustainability reference interviews has the potential to increase the science literacy of students who otherwise lack background knowledge in the sciences. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
Downloads
References
Association of College and Research Libraries. 2000. Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education. [Internet]. [Cited May 2011]. Available from: http://www.ala.org/ala/mgrps/divs/acrl/standards/informationliteracycompetency.cfm
Bernstam, E., Walji, M., Sagaram, S., Sagaram, D., Johnson, C., Meric-Bernstam, F. 2008. Commonly cited website quality criteria are not effective at identifying inaccurate online information about breast cancer. Cancer. Issue 6. 1206-1213. DOI: 10.1002/cncr.23308 http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cncr.23308/full
Breckons, M., Jones, R., Morris, J., Richardson, J. 2008. What do evaluation instruments tell us about the quality of complementary medicine information on the Internet? Journal of Medical Internet Research. DOI: 10.2196/jmir.961 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2483844/
Brem, S.K., Russell, J., & Weems, L. 2001. Science on the web: student evaluations of scientific arguments. Discourse Processes 32(2/3). 191-213.
Curran, C. 1990. Information literacy and the public library. Public Libraries 29(6): 349-353
Centre for Evidence Based Conservation. 2011. Introduction to Systematic Review. Prifygol Bangor University. [Internet]. [Cited: June 6, 2011]. Available from: http://www.cebc.bangor.ac.uk/introSR.php?catid=&subid=6367
Centre for Evidence Based Medicine. 2011. EBM Tools. Center for Evidence Based Medicine. University of Oxford. [Internet]. [Cited May 2011]. Available from: http://www.cebm.net/index.aspx?o=1023
Environmental Protection Agency. 2011. Sustainability: Basic Information. United States Environmental Protection Agency. [Internet]. [Cited June 2011]. Available from: http://www.epa.gov/sustainability/basicinfo.htm#sustainability
Etzioni, A. 1971. The need for quality filters in information systems. Science. 171(967):133-133.
Eysenbach, G., Powell, J., Kuss, O., and Sa, E. 2002. Empirical studies assessing the quality of health information for consumers on the World Wide Web. The Journal of the American Medical Association. 287(20): 2691-2700 {dx.doi.org/10.1001/jama.287.20.2691}
Grafstein, A. 2002. A discipline-based approach to information literacy. Journal of Academic Librarianship. 28(4):197.
Kuller, A.B., Wessel, C.B., et al. 1993. Quality filtering of the clinical literature by librarians and physicians. Bulletin of the Medical Library Association 81(1): 38-43.
Maughan, P. 2001. Assessing information literacy among undergraduates: a discussion of the literature and the University of California-Berkeley Assessment Program. College and Research Libraries 62(1): 71-85
National Center for the Dissemination of Disability Research. 2005. What are the standards for quality research? Focus. Technical Brief NO. 9 http://www.ncddr.org/kt/products/focus/focus9/Focus9.pdf
Petzold, J., Winterman, B., and Montooth, K. 2010. Science seeker: a new model for teaching information literacy to entry-level biology undergraduates. Issues in Science and Technology Librarianship 63. [Internet]. [Cited June 2011]. Available from: http://www.istl.org/10-fall/refereed2.html
Shen, Benjamin S.P. 1975. Science literacy and the public understanding of science. In: Day, Stacey B., Ed. Communication Of Scientific Information. New York: S. Karger. p. 44-52.
Sutherland, W. 2003. Evidence-based conservation. Conservation in Practice 4(3): 39-41.
Walji, M., Sagaram, S., Sagaram, D., Merc-Bernstam, F., Johnson, C., Mirza, N., and Bernstam, E. 2000. Efficacy of quality criteria to identify potentially harmful information: a cross-sectional survey of complementary and alternative medicine web sites. Journal of Medical Internet Research. [Internet]. [Cited November 8, 2011]. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1550600/
Wooding, S. and Grant, J. 2003. Assessing Research: The Researchers' View. RAND Europe. MR-1681-HEFCE - DTIC Document. [Internet]. [Cited November 8, 2011]. Available from: {https://web.archive.org/web/20110726182055/http://www.rareview.ac.uk/reports/assess/AssessResearchReport.pdf}
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2011 Richard Gabriel Hare, Jihoon Jo, Elizabeth Moreton, Andrew Stamm, Danielle Winter
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
