Ii

KS

a

ARAA

KPIIAU

1

msinspiu

ettrmfa1

j

0h

International Journal of Information Management 34 (2014) 74–79

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Information Management

journa l h om epa ge : www.elsev ier .com/ l ocate / i j in fomgt

nformation encountering and management in information literacynstruction of undergraduate, students

ristine N. Stewart ∗, Josipa Basic1

chool of Information Science & Learning Technologies, University of Missouri, 111 London, Hall, Columbia, 65211, Missouri USA

r t i c l e i n f o

rticle history:eceived 12 October 2013ccepted 29 October 2013vailable online 20 December 2013

eywords:ersonal information managementnformation encounteringnformation literacy

a b s t r a c t

The nature of the information-rich environment of the 21st century has affected the ways in which stu-dents’ access information. Students no longer have to seek information; they acquire it passively throughtheir everyday use of the Internet. This paper presents findings of a study involving the informationencountering experiences of undergraduate students and the potential role of personal information col-lection, management, and retrieval in information literacy instruction. Undergraduate students enrolledin an information literacy course were surveyed regarding their experiences online with informationencountering and personal information management. Survey questions were adopted from the informa-tion encountering scale developed by Wise & Erdelez (2012) and consisted of twelve questions focused on

CRL standardsndergraduate students

the noticing, stopping, examining, and capturing steps of the Information encountering model (Erdelez,2004). The study indicates that the vast majority of the undergraduate students responding to the surveywere frequently encountering unexpected information while online, but were not capturing this infor-mation for future use using built-in, web-based tools. While information literacy courses teach studentsto identify, seek, analyze, and use needed information, they do not prepare them to manage and retrieve

encou

unexpected information

. Introduction

Information comes to students in many forms and throughany channels without actively seeking or requesting it. In a

ociety overwhelmed by the sheer mass of information available, its just as easy for individuals to ignore information that they haveot actively sought or requested. Information literacy seeks toolve problems associated with information overload through therovision of a skills set to assist individuals in recognizing “when

nformation is needed and have the ability to locate, evaluate, andse effectively the needed information” (ACRL, 2000; ALA, 1989).

Emerging technologies have changed the way that we, as a soci-ty, interact with information as well as the extent to which we useechnology to communicate. Information literacy in the 21st cen-ury needs to address information users as both passive and activeeceivers of information so that they are able to seek needed infor-ation as well as accept, gather, store, and retrieve information

rom a variety of sources. This includes the ability of a user to storend organize information in anticipation of a future need (Bruce,998). Friedel (2001) noted that “insight is every bit as important

∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +44 07530009121.E-mail addresses: kns5gd@mail.missouri.edu (K.N. Stewart),

byv7@mail.missouri.edu (J. Basic).1 Tel.: +1 650 421 1031.

268-4012/$ – see front matter © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.ttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2013.10.007

ntered while using the Internet.© 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

as the accident” (p. 38), so although it is very possible that neededinformation may be stumbled upon accidentally, if the individualis unable to make the link between the information that they haveencountered, and a need that they have the information will not bemade use of.

Information encountered by students requires that they havepractical skills that will assist them in managing unexpected infor-mation. Information literacy standards do not reflect the changingnature of information use and distribution because they have notbeen revised in over a decade; in this time, the methods of infor-mation distribution, and storage have changed greatly.

This paper describes a case study focused on the behavior whichstudents exhibit when they encounter unexpected information andis placed in the context of a one-credit information literacy coursebased on ACRL’s Competency Standards for Higher Education. Inparticular, this research investigates how the current ACRL Compe-tency Standards address personal information management, alongwith which students would benefit from the integration of personalinformation management into an information literacy course.

2. Background

2.1. Personal information management

“Information is not always there when we need it or where weneed it” (Jones, 2004, para. 2). Needed information may exist in

l of In

aeptccFadii

tnwcis

Kcimta2tai

2dmiepwwsaio

2

pdpdmocfer

iFrae(llf

K.N. Stewart, J. Basic / International Journa

variety of formats (digital or print) and scattered across differ-nt desktops, flash drives, and e-mail accounts (Jones, 2004). Thisroblem is amplified by the variety of methods in which informa-ion is distributed. Information no longer needs to be sought; itomes freely to students in many different forms outside of thelassroom, such as television shows and documentaries, tweets,acebook messages, cell-phone apps, game consoles, GPS systems,nd including materials with text, visual, video, voice, music, andigital elements (Anson, 2011, ix). Users frequently encounter

nformation that may be used for a future task, but the questions: where do they put this information in the meantime?

Personal information management (PIM) is a term describinghe responsibility of an individual in the collection, storage, orga-ization, and retrieval of personal items in digital form (e.g. files,ebsite addresses) (Boardman & Sasse, 2004) and is frequently

ased in terms of an individual’s ability to manage informationn fulfillment of their various life roles such as parent, employee,tudent, etc. (Fourie, 2011a,b).

While the idea of PIM is by no means new, the problem ofeeping Found Things Found (KFTF) has become increasingly moreomplicated as the sheer mass of information on the Internet hasncreased (Jones et al., 2001). Methods to collect and manage infor-

ation have also increased with the accumulation of technologieshat students rely on for everyday information needs and have thusssisted in the creation of information overload (Marshall et al.,005). The increase in the quantity and accessibility of informa-ion creates the need for skills to assess the relevancy, reliability,nd credibility of information as well as the ability to manage thisnformation efficiently.

In the Keeping Things Found Studies (KTFS), Jones et al. (2001;002; 2003) found that their participants were frustrated with theifferent technologies needed to organize their information acrossultiple organizational schemes. Participants collected and stored

nformation sources in a variety of ways including self-addressed-mails and document files. These studies were focused on theroblems that users encounter while managing information in theirorkplace environment, but it is not only the working professionalho has the task of managing information coming from multiple

ources. Information is encountered on a daily basis by users in variety of contexts. While some information is sought out, othernformation comes in the form of a URL shared by a friend, colleaguer media source (Marshall et al., 2005).

.2. Rethinking information literacy competency standards

For close to three decades, information literacy models haverovided pedagogical tools and learning strategies for teaching stu-ents how to search for, evaluate, and use resources for researchurposes. These skills are important, not only in a student’s aca-emic life but also in other facets in which they are required toake educated decisions. Models typically include a description

f specific steps that students are expected to complete whileonducting information research and provide useful scaffoldingor novice information seekers as they gain more search experi-nce and learn how to address more complex and time consumingesearch activities.

The prescriptive simplicity of information literacy modelss especially evident in teaching students to conduct research.or example, the traditional methods and standards of teachingesearch have no elements of surprise that are the common char-cteristics of most satisfying and worthwhile discoveries (Erdelezt al., 2011). Some authors such as O’Sullivan (2002) and Wilder

2005) also questioned the applicability and transferability of skillsearned through information literacy instruction in schools to life-ong learning, because everyday information behavior does notollow flow-charts provided by information literacy models; it

formation Management 34 (2014) 74–79 75

is messy, iterative, and often unpredictable. This may be partlyattributed to the shift in how information is being presented andaccessed within our networked society.

ACRL’s information literacy competency standards include theability of information literate students to:

1. Determine the nature and extent of the information needed.2. Access needed information effectively and efficiently.3. Evaluate information and its sources critically and incorporate

selected information into their knowledge base and value sys-tem.

4. Use information effectively to accomplish a specific purpose.5. Understand many of the economic, legal, and social issues

surrounding the use of information and accesses and uses infor-mation ethically and legally (ACRL, 2000).

While all of the above standards are important in the assess-ment of information resources, these standards are framed in thecontext of an information seeker, one who has already identified aninformation need and is actively engaged in satisfying that infor-mation need. Information technology skills are intertwined withinformation literacy (ACRL, 2000), and information technology haschanged drastically in the last decade. Since 2000, social technolo-gies have exploded giving us Twitter, Facebook, Enterprise 2.0, andsocial gaming. Current information literacy models do not addressthe active and passive roles of information users, which includethe acceptance of, gathering, organization, storage, and retrieval ofinformation from a variety of sources.

2.3. Opportunistic discovery of information

Humans have sought out many ways to seek, organize, anduse information as they learn and develop patterns of humaninformation behavior (HIB) for resolving problems associated withtheir survival, work and everyday life (Case, 2012). Wilson (2000)defined information behavior as the “totality of human behav-ior in relation to sources and channels of information, includingboth active and passive information seeking and information use”(Wilson, 2000, p.50). Although Wilson recognized both active andpassive actions, most of the information behavior models, as well asresearch studies, have traditionally focused on how people activelyseek information. However, over the last two decades, many infor-mation behavior researchers have recognized the importance ofserendipity and various forms of opportunistic discovery of infor-mation (ODI) in human information behavior (e.g., Erdelez, 1997,2000, 2004; Foster & Ford, 2002; Foster, 2003; Björneborn, 2008;McBirnie, 2008).

This type of information acquisition has been recognized as acommon behavior in modern environment saturated with infor-mation and pervasive technologies for its processing. Severaldefinitions have been provided to describe this phenomenon. In herearlier studies, Erdelez (1997: 412) defined information encounter-ing as ‘memorable experiences of accidental discovery of useful andinteresting information’. Williamson (1998: 24) defined ‘inciden-tal information acquisition’ as ‘finding information unexpectedlywhile engaged in other activities’, while Heinström (2006) definedit as ‘acquiring (useful or interesting) information while not con-sciously looking for it’.

2.4. Information encountering (IE) model

Erdelez (2004) has developed the IE model, which assumes that

information users switch from the foreground task of finding spe-cific information to the background interest or problem-relatedtask during the information encountering process. Erdelez (2004)argued that a person typically attends to only one problem at a time

7 l of In

dwtrat

12

34

aetd(

2

gcitltsrftc

etemgacewtmttaciataisih

tawie

6 K.N. Stewart, J. Basic / International Journa

ue to the limitations of the human perceptual system engagedhen seeking information. The IE model proposes several steps

hat occur during IE: noticing, stopping, examining, capturing, andeturning. Each step involves a combination of cognitive, affective,nd behavioral processes that may be applied to the user, who doeshe following:

. Sees information relevant to the background problem;

. Interrupts the original search process to examine the encoun-tered information;

. Saves the information that is deemed to be worth saving;

. Returns to the initial information search for the foreground prob-lem. (Erdelez, 2005, p.181)

This model became a basis for the IE Scale (Wise et al., 2012), tool developed to measure the frequency in which peoplencounter information. The validity of this instrument has gonehrough an initial validation process with a sample of 3,037 respon-ents in September 2011, but is still in the validation testing processWise et al., 2012).

.5. ODI in information literacy

While the latest research on human information behavior sug-ests that opportunistic discovery of information is an importantomponent of people’s interaction with information in an increas-ngly networked world (Erdelez, 1997; Toms & McCay-Peet, 2009),his knowledge so far has not been translated into informationiteracy instruction. Erdelez et al. (2011) evaluated five informa-ion literacy models popular in the U.S. elementary and secondarychools based on the primary and secondary sources. The resultsevealed that none of the models included explicit reference to anyorms of ODI; however, within each of the five analyzed modelshere are stages where natural occurrences of ODI are possible andould be articulated for students.

Several other authors investigated the role of informationncountering in information literacy and the research process (Fos-er & Ford, 2002; Nutefall & Ryder, 2010; McBirnie, 2008; Miwat al., 2011). ODI appears to be an important aspect of how infor-ation is being encountered as well as how new ideas are being

enerated by interdisciplinary researchers (Foster & Ford, 2002)nd students (Nutefall & Ryder, 2010). Serendipity in searchingould have the effect of either reinforcing or strengthening thexisting problem or taking the researcher in a new direction, inhich the problem conception is re-configured in some way (Fos-

er & Ford, 2002). Traditional methods of teaching research are “soechanical, so dubiously precise, so lacking in the rough edges,

he messiness, the element of surprise that so often characterizeshe most satisfying and worthwhile discoveries” (George, 2005)nd being “extremely exciting and positive, serendipity can be aritical occurrence, positively altering the course and outcome ofnformation seeking” (McBirnie, 2008). Similarly, McBirnie (2008)rgues that information literacy education should move away fromhe concept of ‘wrongness’ and ‘rightness’ and ‘one size fits’ allpproach, and should appreciate the benefits of chance discover-es. According to Miwa et al. (2011), when students experience theatisfaction of finding something by themselves through serendip-tous patterns, their motivation for research is enhanced since theyave an interest in and responsibility for the particular subject.

People encounter much more information than they can effec-ively use. They keep information in many different formats, using

number of devices, technologies, and applications on whiche heavily rely. The ability to collect and store information has

ncreased with mechanisms created to store information withase; however, the skills required to manage the large quantity of

formation Management 34 (2014) 74–79

information stored on devices and applications has not developedat the same rate as our technologies (Jones et al., 2001).

In addition to learning how to manage information once stored,we must also be able to organize information so that it may beeasily retrieved when needed. Marshall et al. (2005) emphasize “theserendipity, the utility, and the pleasure of re-encountering whatwe have saved relies on more than search alone” (p. 3); PIM requiresthat we are able to track sources in order to use them for futurepurposes and organize information in a way that is meaningful tothe user. This being stated, PIM skills are merely an outcome ofperformance indicators noted within one of the ACRL standards,which provides the framework for information literacy instruction(Johnston & Webber, 2003). While PIM is integral in the ability ofstudents to access needed information effectively and efficiently inresponse to an information need.

This paper focuses on how information literacy may be used asa skill to assist students in helping students manage informationfound and encountered. In the context of the previous literaturereview, the following research questions were explored:

• RQ1: How do the ACRL Competency Standards address personalinformation management?

• RQ2: What students in this class will benefit from the integra-tion of personal information management into this informationliteracy course?

3. Research methodology

To answer the first research question on how the ACRL Compe-tency Standards address PIM, the researchers analyzed literaturefrom the Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL) aswell as secondary literature that discuss the application of the stan-dards in information literacy curriculum.

To determine which students will benefit from the integrationof PIM into this information literacy course and to learn how stu-dents are currently managing found and encountered informationonline, we conducted a survey of undergraduate students currentlyenrolled in a semester long one-credit information literacy courseat a large Mid-west research university in the United States.

3.1. Research setting and participants

The research site for this study was a semester long, one-creditinformation literacy course at a large Mid-western university inthe United States. The class teaches research skills using libraryand web resources and is based on ACRL’s Competency Standards.Nine sections of the class were currently being taught and all ninesections were invited to participate in the study. The institutionalreview board (IRB) approved the distribution of a survey in-class.Participation in the survey was voluntary and if interested, studentswere given a few minutes at the end of class to take the survey. Fromthese nine sections (a total of ninety-four students were enrolled),seventy-one students agreed to participate in the study.

3.2. Data collection and procedures

The survey was based on the information encountering scalepreviously noted, and developed by Wise, Erdelez, and Chiang(2012). The survey instrument consisted of twelve questionsadopted from the information encountering scale instrument andfocused on the noticing, stopping, examining and capturing steps

of the IE model (See Appendix). Each question asked respondentsto indicate the frequency of certain information behaviors on afive-point-scale (Never/Almost never, Seldom, Sometimes, Often,Always/Almost always).

l of In

paonda

3

st

ctisoi

4

4i

aihn

mpmibspzO

•

••

••

adhomcncsi

f

K.N. Stewart, J. Basic / International Journa

The researchers used the survey to determine what student’serceptions are of their experiences of information encountering,nd which students in particular may benefit from the integrationf PIM into information literacy instruction. The survey question-aire was entered into Qualtrics, a Web-based survey tool and wasistributed to course sections via a link posted on the course man-gement site for each section of the class.

.3. Data analysis

After all sections of the undergraduate course completed theurvey, the researchers conducted a frequency distribution analysiso answer the second research question.

Survey data was analyzed through the lens of the previously dis-ussed IE model. The researchers broke the five-point-scale up intowo different sections, grouping Never/Almost never or Seldom,nto one group and Sometimes, Often, Always/Almost always into aecond group. The majority of findings were reported using the sec-nd group in order to highlight those who frequently encounterednformation unexpectedly.

. Findings and discussion

.1. How do the ACRL Competency Standards address personalnformation management?

ACRL’s Competency Standards provide a framework forssessing the information literate individual “and are the basis fornformation literacy instruction” (ACRL, 2000). These standards,owever, have not been revised since 2000 and, consequently, doot reflect the changing nature of information use and distribution.

Management of information is listed as the fifth perfor-ance indicator of ACRL’s second standard and is a competency

resupposed by the standards “Because information literacy aug-ents students’ competency with evaluating, managing, and using

nformation, it is now considered by several regional and discipline-ased accreditation associations as a key outcome for collegetudents” (ACRL, 2000, para. 6). Additionally, this outcome refersrimarily to the proper citation of resources not the actual organi-ation and storage of documents and other information resources.utcomes of this performance indicator include:

Selects among various technologies the most appropriate one forthe task of extracting the needed informationCreates a system for organizing the informationDifferentiates between the types of sources cited and under-stands the elements and correct syntax of a citation for a widerange of resourcesRecords all pertinent citation information for future referenceUses various technologies to manage the information selectedand organized (ACRL, 2000).

Since these outcomes were written, the nature of informationnd distribution as well as the role of information users has changedrastically. As a result, the organization and storage of informationas become much more complex than the creation of a citation inrder to retrieve information when needed. The increase in infor-ation and its subsequent digitization has made it necessary to

reate a static environment so that individuals may store and orga-ize found information. This, alone, makes the organization andollection of information just as important as any of the five main

tandards and goes far beyond the second standard, for which it isncluded as an outcome.

Management of personal information in the 21st century goesar beyond the basics of proper formatting of citations and is

formation Management 34 (2014) 74–79 77

focused primarily on the skills needed to efficiently organize andstore information for later retrieval, which may or may not berelated to academic activities. While citations are useful for this,more sophisticated skills are required for quick access to informa-tion in the Digital Age. These skills include the ability of studentsto use technologies to store both citations as well as the actualdocuments for easy retrieval. This requires both knowledge of theexistence of available tools as well as the skills needed to use thesetools effectively.

4.2. Which students in this class will benefit from the integrationof personal information management into this informationliteracy course?

The findings are grouped according to steps from the IE modelpreviously discussed. The author of this model, Erdelez, stated thatthese steps are not necessarily visible in each instance of informa-tion encountering and that the mode of fulfillment depends on thecharacteristics of the specific information environments, for thisreason the researchers chose to focus on the first three steps fromthe IE model:

1. Noticing: Sees information relevant to the background problem.2. Stopping & Examining: Interrupts the original search process to

examine the encountered information.3. Capturing: Saves the information that is deemed to be worth

saving.

4.3. Noticing

Forty-six out of seventy-one respondents (65%) reported thatwhen searching for online information they scan things that arenot related to what they are looking for. When searching for infor-mation online, sixty-eight (96%) respondents reported they comeacross information they were not looking for. Sixty-seven (94%)respondents notice information they weren’t looking for whileusing a search engine. Sixty-four (90%) of respondents find infor-mation they were not looking for when surfing or browsing theWeb.

4.4. Stopping & examining

Forty-nine respondents (69%) interrupted their original searchwhen they noticed information they weren’t looking for online.Fifty-one respondents (72%) reported that their process of findinginformation is interrupted when they stop to look at somethingunrelated to their goal. Forty-eight respondents (68%) reportedopening a new browser tab or window to explore unexpectedinformation online further. Fifty-two respondents (73%) reportedsearching for more information on a topic when they unexpectedlyfind interesting information online.

4.5. Capturing

Twenty-seven respondents (38%) reported bookmarking unex-pected information when surfing the web. Surprisingly, the other(62%) reported that they seldom or almost never bookmark infor-mation that catches their interest, indicating that they are eithernot capturing information or they are using tools other than thesebuilt in tools.

The students who reported sometimes, often or always noticing,

stopping, examining, and capturing information online would ben-efit from the integration of PIM into information literacy instructionbecause it would provide them with the skills needed to organizeand store information for easy retrieval at a later time.

7 l of In

5

uttnTdbt

it

ittnetfcSc

5i

wmor

lsitobtimetuatrteelrr

swibtnor

8 K.N. Stewart, J. Basic / International Journa

. Conclusions

The findings of this study show that the vast majority of thendergraduate students enrolled in this class frequently encoun-ering unexpected, useful information online and stop to examinehis information. This study also found that students in this class areot using bookmarks in order to capture information for later use.his finding reflects Jones et al. (2001) study on KFTF in which heiscovered that methods to manage information directly supportedy Internet browsing tools, such as history and bookmarking, werehe least frequently used tools by participants.

Although the students in this study were not using bookmarksn order to return to encountered information, this does not meanhey do not return.

Advances in technologies have changed the landscape in whichnformation literacy skills exist, creating the need for instruc-ion to shift from its concern with what students do to learnowards a model concerned with how students respond, orga-ize, and integrate information they have discovered into theirxisting knowledge. While the skills needed to assess informa-ion are taught in information literacy courses, our investigationound that the skills needed to collect and organize found or dis-overed information are not emphasized in the ACRL’s Competencytandards which provide the framework for information literacyurriculum.

.1. Implications and recommendations for information literacynstruction

PIM skills are important for students to have in this world inhich they actively and passively acquire information. While infor-ation can be readily found, if students are unable to store and

rganize this information efficiently, this information will not beeturned to for future use.

Information literacy skills assist in reducing information over-oad by helping students sift through information that they haveought, but it does not help them in the case of encounterednformation, since it was not solicited in response to an informa-ion need. Information literacy instruction needs to address notnly the psychological elements of the information encountering,ut also the practical skills required to handle this informa-ion. PIM has a place in information literacy and needs to bentegrated into either information literacy instruction or as a

odule for students struggling with returning to and retrievingncountered information when needed. Recognizing the poten-ial future uses of information is only a part of the equation,sers also need to be able to store information for later retrievalnd use. Over time, changes in the level of students’ sophis-ication emerge as they become more comfortable with theesearch process and capable of dealing with the overall informa-ion gathering activities it involves. By incorporating informationncountering and PIM into the current information literacy mod-ls, teachers could promote a more holistic view of informationiteracy that would broaden students’ awareness of naturalisticesearch processes and emerging trends in information storage andetrieval.

There is the potential for PIM skills to exist as a whole newtandard by itself as a supplement to ACRL’s existing standards,hich include identifying an information need and then accessing,

ncorporating, using, and understanding, with the final standardeing the organization, storage, and management of that informa-

ion for future use or reference. A revision of the ACRL standards iseeded in order to reflect the changing landscape of information,verflowing with a variety of sources, which may be stored andetrieved from a variety of platforms.

formation Management 34 (2014) 74–79

5.2. Limitations and future studies

The limitations of this study include the questions asked ofparticipants. While the survey asked basic questions regardingparticipant’s online information encountering experiences, nofollow-up questions were asked in order to identify how theystore information, the types of difficulties they encounter in themanagement of information, and whether or not they perceivedinformation management as a problem.

This research provides a preliminary examination of informa-tion encountering of college students in order to inform futureresearch into problems with PIM. In future work the authorsintend to examine how students store and manage information andwhether or not they perceive PIM skills to be of value to them. Addi-tionally, because of the way social technologies have changed theway people communicate, future research may also focus on thevarious ways that information encountered through social mediais re-created, shared, and managed.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the course instructors who allowed thedistribution of the survey during class, as well as the students whoparticipated in this study. Additionally, we would like to thankDr. Sanda Erdelez for the use and consultation of her InformationEncountering Scale (IES) and Dr. John Budd for his input on theorganization of this paper and the ACRL standards.

Appendix A. Appendix. Survey Questions

Each question asked respondents to indicate the frequency ofcertain information behaviors on a five-point-scale (Never/Almostnever, Seldom, Sometimes, Often, Always/Almost always).

1. When searching for information online I scan things that aren’trelated to what I’m looking for.

2. When searching for information online, I come across otherinformation that I wasn’t looking for.

3. When I use search engines, I notice information I wasn’t lookingfor.

4. When I surf/browse the web I find information that I wasn’tlooking for.

5. When I notice information that I wasn’t looking for online, Itend to interrupt my original search.

6. The process of finding information online gets interrupted byme stopping to look at something unrelated to my original goal.

7. When surfing the web, if something unexpected catches myinterest, I bookmark it with my web browser.

8. When I find unexpected information online that is interesting,I search for more information on that topic.

9. When I find unexpected information online that is interest-ing, I open a new browser tab or a new window to explore theinformation further.

10. When I come across something interesting online, I forward it toother people even if it wasn’t something I was initially lookingfor.

11. I forward interesting emails to family members, friends, or col-leagues.

12. I email links to interesting webpages to family members,friends, or colleagues.

References

Association of College & Research Libraries. (2000). Information literacy com-petency standards for higher education. , http://www.ala.org/acrl/standards/informationliteracycompetency#f1 (Accessed 10.10.13.).

l of In

A

A

B

B

BC

E

E

E

E

E

FF

F

F

F

G

H

J

K.N. Stewart, J. Basic / International Journa

merican Library Association. (1989). Presidential committee on informationliteracy: Final report. , http://www.ala.org/acrl/publications/whitepapers/presidentialhttp://www.ala.org/acrl/publications/whitepapers/presidential/(Accessed 12.10.13).

nson, C. M. (2011). Forward. In S. A. Vavra, & S. L. Spencer (Eds.), Clash!: SuperheroicYet Sensible Strategies for Teaching the New Literacies Despite the Status Quo (pp.ix–xiii). Charlotte: Information Age Publishing.

jörneborn, L. (2008). Serendipity dimensions and users’ information behaviourin the physical library interface. Information Research, 13.Retrieved fromhttp://informationr.net/ir/13-4/paper370.html (Accessed 12.10.13).

oardman, R., & Sasse, M. A. (2004). “Stuff goes into the computer and doesn’t comeout”: a cross-tool study of personal information management. In Proceedingsfrom CHI ‘04: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computingsystems New York: ACM.

ruce, C. (1998). Seven faces of Information Literacy. Adelaide: Auslib Press.ase, D. O. (Ed.). (2012). Looking for Information: A Survey of Research on

Information Seeking, Needs, and Behavior.. United Kingdom: Emerald GroupPublishing.

rdelez, S. (1997). Information encountering: a conceptual framework for accidentalinformation discovery. In P. Vakkari, R. Savolainen, & B. Dervin (Eds.), Informa-tion Seeking in Context. Proceedings of an International Conference on Research inInformation Needs, Seeking and Use in Different Contexts, (pp. 412–421). London:Taylor Graham.

rdelez, S. (2000). Towards understanding information encountering on the Web.Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the American Society for Information Science,47, 363–371.

rdelez, S. (2004). Investigation of an opportunistic acquisition of information inthe controlled research environment. Information Processing and Management,40, 1013–1025.

rdelez, S. (2005). Information encountering. In E. Karen, Fisher, Sanda Erdelez, E.F. Lynne, & McKechnie (Eds.), Theories of Information Behavior (pp. 179–184).Medford, NJ: Information Today.

rdelez, S., Basic, J., & Levitov, D. D. (2011). Potential for inclusion of informa-tion encountering within information literacy models. Information Research,16(3). Retrieved from http://InformationR.net/ir/16-3/paper489.html Accessed12.10.2013.

riedel, R. (2001). Serendipity is no accident. Kenyon Review, 23(2), 36–47.ourie, I. (2011a). Librarians alert: how can we exploit what is happening with

personal information management (PIM), reference management and relatedissues? Library Hi Tech, 29(3), 550–556.

ourie, I. (2011b). Personal information management (PIM), reference manage-ment and mind maps: the way to creative librarians? Library Hi Tech, 29(4),764–771.

oster, A. (2003). A nonlinear model of information-seeking behavior. Journal of theAmerican Society for Information Science and Technology, 55, 228–237.

oster, A. E., & Ford, N. J. (2002). Serendipity and information seeking: an empiricalstudy. Journal of Documentation, 59, 321–340.

eorge, J. (2005). Socratic inquiry and the pedagogy of reference. In Currents andConvergence: Navigating the Rivers of Change: Proceedings of the Twelfth NationalConference of the Association of College and Research Libraries. Chicago: Associa-

tion of College and Research Libraries.

einström, J. (2006). Psychological factors behind incidental information acquisi-tion. Library & Information Science Research, 28(4), 579–594.

ohnston, B., & Webber, S. (2003). Information literacy in higher education: a reviewand case study. Studies in Higher Education, 28(3), 335–352.

formation Management 34 (2014) 74–79 79

Jones, W. P., Bruce, H., & Dumais, S. (2001). Keeping found things foundon the web. In Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Infor-mation and Knowledge Management. Atlanta: ACM CIKM. Retrieved fromhttp://cikm2001.cc.gatech.edu/(Accessed 11.10.13).

Jones, W. P., Dumais, S., & Bruce, H. (2002). Once found, what next?: a study of“keeping” behaviors in the personal use of web information. In Proceedings ofthe Annual Conference of American Society for Information Science and TechnologyPhiladelphia, PA.

Jones, W., Bruce, H., & Dumais, S. (2003). How do people get back to informationon the web? How can they do it better? In INTERACT 2003: Proceedings of the9th IFIP TC13 International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction Zurich,Switzerland.

Jones, W. P. (First Monday 2004). Finders, Keepers? The Present and Future Per-fect in Support of Personal Information Management. , http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/1123/(Accessed 12.10.13).

Marshall, C. C., Bruce, H., Ross, B., Catarci, T., Gage, D., & Maier, D. (2005). Encounter-ing, keeping and organizing information; maintaining an information collection. ,http://pim.ischool.washington.edu/3.%20Encountering,%20keeping%20and%20organizing%20informatio%20reprt,%20final.pdf/(Accessed 12.10.13).

McBirnie, A. (2008). Seeking serendipity: the paradox of control. ASLIB Proceedings,60(6), 600–618.

Miwa, M., Egusa, Y., Saito, H., Takaku, M., Terai, H., & Kando, N. (2011). A methodto capture information encountering embedded in exploratory Web searches.Information Research, 16(3). Retrieved from http://InformationR.net/ir/16-3/paper487.html Accessed 11.10.2013.

Nutefall, J. E., & Ryder, P. M. (2010). The serendipitous research process. Journal ofAcademic Librarianship, 36(3), 228–234.

O’Sullivan, C. (2002). Is information literacy relevant in the real world? ReferenceServices Review, 30, 7–14.

Toms, E. G., & McCay-Peet, L. (2009). Chance encounters in the digital library. InM. Agosti, J. Borbinha, S. Kapidakish, C. Papatheodorou, & G. Tsakonas (Eds.),ECDL’09. Proceedings of the 13th European Conference on Research and AdvancedTechnology for Digital Libraries, Corfu, Greece, (pp. 192–202). Berlin: SpringerVerlag.

Wilder, S. (2005). Information literacy makes all wrong assumptions. The Chronicleof Higher Education, 51, B13.

Williamson, K. (1998). Discovered by chance: the role of incidental informationacquisition in an ecological model of information use. Library & InformationScience Research, 20(1), 23–40.

Wilson, T. D. (2000). Human information behavior. Informing Science, 3(2), 49–55.Retrieved from http://inform.nu/Articles/Vol3/v3n2p49-56.pdf Accessed12.10.2013.

Wise, K., Erdelez, S., & Chiang, Y.-H. (2012). Development of a scale to measure indi-vidual differences in opportunistic discovery of information. In Paper presentedat the International Communication Association (ICA) Conference May 24-28,Phoenix, AZ.

Kristine N. Stewart is a doctoral candidate at the School of Information Science &Learning Technologies, University of Missouri. Her research interests include infor-mation literacy in the context of everyday decision-making.

Josipa Basic is a doctoral candidate at the School of Information Science &Learning Technologies, University of Missouri. Her research interests includehuman information behavior in electronic environments and human computerinteraction.