http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8463-6468
Abstract
We report on a study of an authentic assessment task in an Australian business school, where the 2015 ACRL framework for information literacy was applied to support the development of critical thought. Contextualised in an ongoing, meaningful partnership between a liaison librarian and an academic, the study involved pre- and post-engagement evaluation of learners’ decision-making about information sources that would best support a business presentation to a senior executive team. The pre- and post-evaluations were mediated by engagement with learners on the constructed and contextual nature of authority, which involved a detailed set of guidelines and online discussion facilitated by an information services librarian and the academic convening the subject. We found that students are already sensitive to a constructivist paradigm in selecting information sources. However, the depth of critical enquiry in evaluating ‘authority’ was uneven. Notwithstanding the robustness of the guidelines that we developed to support the evaluation of information sources, we found that it is important to provide further support to learners in working through the application of a constructivist frame.
Information Literacy and Authentic Assessment
Recent developments towards a constructivist approach to information literacy intersect well with initiatives in authentic assessment being mounted by academics and their institutions. Authentic assessment refers to assessments that are designed to achieve learning outcomes that are meaningful in the real world; that reflect the tasks that learners will undertake in the course of working with knowledge in practice. One of the challenges surrounding this teaching practice is that the nature of authenticity is contestable, messy and infused with value judgments about what passes for authoritative evidence in the real world. This, in part, is because there is more than one meaningful real world that learners inhabit.
The Framework for Information Literacy developed by the Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL, Citation2016) engages with authenticity in proposing that authority is both constructed and contextual (Gilbert, Citation2017). Within the philosophy of knowledge, constructivism refers to the nature of knowledge has being constructed by people through their interactions. Thus, the meaning of any aspect of the world will vary in different cultural contexts and, in the same culture, at different time periods (Howitt, Citation2010). The assumption, therefore, that the world can be observed in an objective way is problematic. In turn, the different constructions that we have about the world each have their implications for different sorts of social action.
A departure from programmatic, bibliographic instructional approaches, the constructivist view of information literacy problematises information according to the context in which information is created, the purpose/s for which it is created and the methods employed to create information. This perspective lays open the social and intellectual pre- and co-conditions that accompany the creation of information. It is at once a breath of fresh air in opening up the contested nature of ‘good’ information and a minefield for instructors and librarians who are guiding the development of information literacy practice in novice learners. Added to this, novice learners, drawing on experiences at school or in the early years of their undergraduate programmes, come with flawed pre-conceptions, believing that they are already well versed in this terrain (Tang & Tseng, Citation2013). Hence, they may either disengage or apply old thinking to what is new territory.
This paper examines the intersection of authentic assessment practice and the recent constructivist turn in information literacy developed in the ACRL framework. The study also points to the merits of close and meaningful collaboration between university liaison librarians and academics (Francis & Wingrove, Citation2017). Within such partnerships, there is rich scope for the development of exciting, relevant and productive authentic assessment practice. A study was undertaken by a business school academic and an information services professional on the selection of information sources by graduate learners in an introductory course in human resource management (HRM). They were asked to advise an HR manager on the choice of information sources that he should make to support a business presentation to his senior executive team on the importance of a strategic approach to HRM. Underpinning the task was instruction and discussion of the constructed and contextual nature of authority and what might be regarded as good information. The study draws on data from a short, online pre-start questionnaire completed by 100 of 117 students and responses to an assessment task where learners were asked to justify their choice of the most suitable information source to support the business presentation to be made by the HR Manager, comparing an academic and a non-academic source.
The value and primary focus of authentic assessment is relatively settled (Holliday et al., Citation2015); however, the elements that constitute this form of assessment are not. The growing importance of authentic assessment in universities and colleges has been linked to calls for greater accountability and transparency in the relationship between higher education and citizenship (Holliday et al., Citation2015).
The recent Framework published by the ACRL provides a valuable, timely opportunity to strengthen practice in information literacy and in authentic assessment. The constructivist philosophical underpinnings of the Framework for Information Literacy developed by the ACRL in 2015 complements the turn towards authenticity in assessment and the key role of critical thinking as an enabler thereof. In essence, the framework problematises information, rather than providing a hierarchy of information sources. It encourages users to examine the social context/s within which information is created and within which it is applied. The goal is for learners to determine for themselves what information is appropriate for a need, and why. The ACRL framework states that:
Information resources reflect their creators’ expertise and credibility, and are evaluated based on the information need and the context in which the information will be used. Authority is constructed in that various communities may recognise different types of authority. It is contextual in that the information need may help to determine the authority required.
Critical and independent thinking about sources of information is of heightened importance in the social sciences, and in business schools in particular. This is not new: critical and independent thinking have been a foundation of information literacy instruction in business schools for a long time (Donham & Steele, Citation2007; Gunasekara, Citation2008; Wallace & Jefferson, Citation2013; Weaver & Tuten, Citation2014). For example, in her Citation2014 study, Bryan examined the correspondence between the elements of critical thinking in her university’s quality enhancement plan and the then ACRL IL standards. She identified gaps in specificity in how critical thinking was defined and integrated into library reference/instruction. In part, these gaps are attributable to debates around the meaning of critical thinking (Kahlke & White, Citation2013; Weiner, Citation2011). But, perhaps this is also because, in the context of information literacy instruction, critical thought has been tethered to a relatively narrow position about what are ‘good’ sources. Information literacy instruction focused on shaping information seeking and evaluative behaviour along fairly clear lines of thought (Asher, Duke, & Wilson, Citation2012).
The identification of ‘good’ information was based on the mode of knowledge production and certain characteristics of the knowledge creator. These qualities are not now unimportant; however, they are nested within a wider frame of authoritative information that takes its cues from context and need. Within a constructivist approach to information literacy, it is even more important that learners are equipped with tools and heuristics to reflect on their own thinking about sources and to determine what constitutes ‘good’ evidence.
Authentic assessment has a line of sight relationship with real world activities, such that the learning outcomes of these assessment tasks are highly meaningful and contextualised for the leaner. Assessment is authentic when it measures products or performances that ‘have meaning or value beyond success in school’ (Newman, Brandt, & Wiggins, Citation1998, p. 19). Wiggins (Citation1993) suggested that authenticity comprised these elements: realistic, requires judgment and innovation; has a strong ‘doing’ or application focus; replicates real-world tasks; assesses many skills to complete a task; and allows many opportunities to practice. The turn towards authentic assessment, which began in the 1980s, goes deeper in its conceptual roots, to Gardner’s (Citation1993) construct of multiple intelligences. Authentic assessment recognises that learners are developing multiple intelligences, and hence, assessment ought to engage with learning outcomes beyond high-stakes, narrowly focused methods.
The work of Frey, Schmitt, and Allen (Citation2012) illustrates the differences that exist in the construction of authentic assessment. For example, some claim that authenticity should involve group-based work, be multifaceted and should reflect real-world complexities in roles. Reeves, Herrington and Oliver propose ten design characteristics of authentic activities, which include: real-world relevance, affording the application of critical and reflective thought.
Critical thought is at the core of authentic assessment, because it is very closely connected to the demonstration of what learners can ‘do’: ‘Authentic assessment is inevitable if one takes a critical approach’ (Janesick, Citation2006, p. 58). Janesick (Citation2006, p. 57) proposes taking a developmental view of critical thought that moves from a set of foundational skills towards high-order thinking skills. Drawing on seminal work from authors such as Richard Paul, Janesick’s list of six standards for critical thought include the familiar tenets of information literacy, including: determine the extent of information needed; access this information effectively and evaluate information and sources critically.
Background to the Study
In this study, we sought to do three things. First, we wanted to introduce postgraduate business students in HRM to a constructivist approach to information literacy that went beyond technical skills and a programmatic, decision-tree approach to selecting sources. Secondly, we wanted to gauge our learners’ initial or pre-constructed thinking on the selection of information sources. Finally, we wanted to assess how learners would apply a constructivist approach to information literacy in making choices about appropriate information sources for a specific, authentic business need. This was important because we believe that recent developments in information literacy are exciting and more relevant than ever in supporting authentic assessment design.
The study was conducted in a postgraduate introductory HRM subject at Charles Sturt University, Australia. This subject is taken by students entering postgraduate programmes in HRM or in business administration. A minority of students from other disciplines take this subject to broaden their knowledge. Charles Sturt University (CSU) is a regional Australian teaching and research university that offers a suite of programmes including agriculture and agribusiness, business, allied health sciences, education, librarianship, nursing and midwifery, dentistry, law, engineering and policing. Spread across five campuses in regional New South Wales, CSU offers undergraduate, postgraduate and executive education programmes in face-to-face mode, online and a combination of face-to-face and online modes of delivery overseas. The university has approximately 40,000 students enrolled in its courses.
The authentic assessment task at the centre of this study sits within a grounded, practical subject design that is strong in authenticity. This paper focuses on just one modest slice from a larger authentic assessment pie that was used in a progressive build up towards larger pieces of work.
Information Literacy Supporting Authentic Assessment
The design of the subject uses a continuous case study that is based on an authentic, but fictional, engineering company (Civil Engineering and Research Associates (CERA)) and the journey that it takes in engaging with a series of HRM issues. Learners are provided with details of the company’s strategy and staffing, including realistic profiles of the senior management team. A company website was purpose-built for the subject to add colour to the authenticity of the project.
The knowledge base in the subject is blended in to the continuous case, such that students are provided with resources that are directly relevant to addressing the issues and challenges faced by the company as the subject unfolds. In essence, at every turn, learners have to ‘do’ something to advise or otherwise assist the decision-makers within the company, notably the HR Manager, and they are provided with resources and support to enable them to accomplish these tasks. In turn, the tasks to be performed by students individually and in groups, form the assessments in the subject. There is virtually no redundant knowledge provided to learners – each piece of knowledge is usable in completing one or more assessment tasks.
In the first assessment task in this subject, students are presented with a scenario faced by the HR Manager. He has tried, with mixed success, to convince his colleagues on the executive team of the value-add that HR offers to the performance of the organisation. Put simply, his message did not cut through. He has now been asked to prepare a further presentation. Learners in the subject are asked to advise the HR manager on information sources that he could use to achieve his goal of persuading the senior team as to the value of HR. This is an entirely realistic task that faces even the most seasoned HR practitioners in Australia and beyond. The task that was set is shown below.
In Topic 1, Israel Tobin, CERA’s HR Manager, has been asked to prepare a ‘short, crisp presentation’ for his colleagues on the executive management team on how HR benefits organisational performance. This is a ‘moment of truth’ for Israel and for the company. CERA is an SME whose executives have a limited understanding of the strategic role of HRM. So, it is important for Israel to base his presentation on valid and reliable information that will be persuasive.
Your task is to compare and contrast two sources of information that you believe will contribute to explaining the role of HRM in effective organisational performance.
To focus the minds of learners on the nature of authority, learners were asked to compare just two sources of information – one was an academic source authored in 2001, from the subject learning resources. They were asked to identify a second, non-academic source. A selection of possible sources was provided, without limiting the scope of searching. These sources included online HRM magazines, HRM blogs and newsletters from peak HRM bodies. A decision had to be made by each learner on which source would be the most appropriate for the HR Manager to use in preparing his presentation, and why. A set of guidelines; the currency, relevance, authority, purpose (CRAP) test, was delivered by the liaison librarian supporting the subject and by the lecturer to assist in this task (see Appendix 1). These guidelines embedded parts of the ACRL Information Literacy Framework, notably, the first element, ‘Authority is constructed and contextual’.
In the weeks prior to the commencement of the subject, all students were asked to complete an online questionnaire on information sources. The questions are shown in Figure .
Figure 1. Pre subject online questionnaire.
The purpose of this questionnaire was to establish a baseline of learners’ awareness of how they would discriminate between sources and to prepare them for the first assessment task. No accompanying instruction on information literacy was provided; although most students would have recognised the context of the questioning based on previous experience at school or in a higher education institution. Several messages of encouragement to complete the questionnaire were sent out by the lecturer. A high response rate (85%) was achieved. Ethics clearance was sought and supplied enabling the use of survey information as well as students’ work in their first assessment for the purpose of academic research.
The three elements in this study are shown in Figure .
Figure 2. Overview of the study.
Results
The results from the study are reported below.
Pre-subject Questionnaire
One hundred out of 117 learners completed the questionnaire, which is a high response rate (85%). Learners were first asked to rank four sources according to how useful they would expect them to be in informing a business presentation on an HRM topic to a senior management team in their organisations. The result is shown in Figure .
Figure 3. Ranked sources of information for business presentation.
The HRM blog and newspaper article were ranked lower than the professional HR magazine and academic article. Learners appear to be aware that newspaper and blog sources may lack the authority to be persuasive sources in business presentations, compared with professional and academic sources.
Next, learners ranked the following more specific sources of information that might inform an HR presentation based on how useful they might expect them to be. The items to be ranked were:
| • | a news story on Four Corners, on ABC Television [4 Corners is a respected investigative current affairs programme produced by the Australian national broadcaster, ABC Television.] | ||||
| • | a TEDx talk by a respected US academic on HRM | ||||
| • | a punchy, relatively brief YouTube video | ||||
| • | a transcript of a speech given by the President of the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry [peak business body in Australia.] | ||||
| • | a transcript of a speech given by the Minister for Employment Relations. | ||||
Figure 4. Ranked specific sources for business presentation.
Here, the order of preference seemed to be reversed, with a clear preference for a short YouTube video and a TV current affairs news story. This is somewhat curious given the previous ranking of sources, perhaps indicating some inconsistency in thinking. The pre-assessment did not probe the reasons for the choices made. This would be explored in the assessment task that followed the discussion of sources, authority and context.
Assessment Item on Selection of Information Sources to Support Business Presentation
The majority of the 117 learners identified a non-academic source as the most appropriate source of information for the task. The results are summarised Table . The non-academic sources selected by learners were mostly professional articles, or blogs or slide presentations.
Table 1. Summary of responses to assessment item.
Ninety-five per cent of learners recommended a non-academic source that they had garnered online compared with just 5% who stated that the 2001 academic source should be used. The main reasons given for this clear preference are listed in Figure . The reasons given were reflective of their interpretation of the contextualised nature of knowledge and, to some extent, the construction of authority. The following selection of quotes from the papers submitted by learners (Figure ) provides further insight into the thinking behind the selection of sources to support the business presentation.
Figure 5. Selected insights into students’ thinking on selection of sources for business presentation.
Discussion and Implications for Practice
There are several points that may be drawn from the pre- and post-evaluation conducted on the selection of sources in context of the ACRL framework where the core concept, ‘information’ is constructed and contextual. First, the preference for non-academic sources that was evident in the pre-assessment was also evident in the assessment task. The reasons given for this, at face value, indicated that learners were sensitive to context and to authority. In selecting their preferred source of information for the business presentation, learners were careful to consider the audience characteristics, the authority of the author and the accessibility of the information.
Secondly, notwithstanding the apparent sensitivity to authority and context in the selection of sources, the discussion of sources in the submitted papers did not always manifest depth in critical thought about these two constructs. That authority is constructed and contextual should not lead to superficial thinking about what sources are appropriate. On the whole, there was a lack of critical thought regarding the expertise and credibility of the authors, or the context of the business presentation. For example, information that is easy to digest or that has been produced by a recognised practitioner may or may not be more relevant or valid for a particular context. This points to the need for more specific criteria to enable students to unpack the constructed and contextual nature of information. The guidelines discussed with learners (see Appendix 1) did address this, but were perhaps not easily understood.
Thirdly, learners were filtering the selection of sources by their own ability to interpret the sources and their own perceptions of what would be most relevant in the context. This was unavoidable, notwithstanding the richness of the information provided regarding the intended audience for the business presentation. As the comments extracted above indicate, some students did at least try to consider the background of the audience and the kinds of information or characteristics of information that would be relevant.
Fourthly, the assessment task itself begs the question of what are credible information sources to reach senior executives. Is this different to the credibility of information for any other audience in a business context? This is an important question that goes to the analysis of context when applying the ACRL framework. Most learners did not identify this issue as one that merited closer examination. Instead, they either second-guessed the answer or relied on their own intuition.
Finally, but by no means least important, this study points to the growing importance of close and meaningful collaboration between liaison librarians and academic staff (Osborn, Citation2017). There is an established body of literature that has examined the pre- and co-conditions of librarian–academic collaboration in embedding information literacy in curricula (e.g. Beck, Blake-Campbell, & McKay, Citation2012; Ivey, Citation2003). It is now accepted that injecting a stand-alone information literacy experience, whether in-class or otherwise, is suboptimal in fostering meaningful change in students’ understanding and behaviour. Recent literature points to the importance of co-constructing information literacy instruction in context of subject design and assessment design. Linking information literacy with authentic assessment can only help to advance meaningful collaboration.
Our collaboration in this subject was set in a context of a remarkable degree of goodwill, mutual respect and a history of conversations and modest collaborations on embedding information literacy into subjects. These early collaborative tasks involved more traditional information literacy module development supported by online quizzes which were somewhat stand-alone.
In this project, we had a series of conversations about how best to embed information literacy in the context of authentic assessment that fostered critical thinking both for academic study and for professional practise. We developed and revised together the assessment task, and, at the suggestion of the librarian collaborator, we added depth to the task using the pre-evaluation survey. A key to the success of this project was embedding the constructivist approach to information literacy within an assessment task that carried significant weight in the overall assessment regime. The use of the CRAP test was introduced to add a clear framework and rigour to the assessment task, while at the same time enhancing students’ understanding and skill in constructing their information needs and evaluating information sources.
In the context of authentic assessment practice, the crucial role played by information literacy in supporting the development of critical thinking, makes it a necessity that this kind of partnership flourishes. In this project, we worked closely from the point of subject design onwards.
One limitation of this paper is the lack of a richer context within which to assess students’ progress in information literacy. This project was a first stage in taking a deeper approach to embedding information literacy within the HRM curriculum; hence, the impact of the intervention is reported only within one semester. Future work will be able to evaluate the impact of this intervention on students’ grades.
Conclusions
The ACRL framework for information literacy provides a powerful opportunity to apply information literacy as an enabler of critical thinking in authentic assessment. The constructivist orientation of the framework is ideal for enabling critical, independent thought in learners as they engage in real-world problem-solving. The study that we undertook indicated that learners are already tuned in to the constructed and contextual nature of authority, and are able to apply this in addressing a realistic business task.
We found that there is a need to invest time and resources in unpacking the nature of authority in regard to credible information sources. The guidelines that we used are a sound framework. However, they contain several quite complex tests and there is room for further work in the way that these guidelines are introduced to learners. At least, learners would need time to digest and work on how to apply the guidelines. One of the limitations in this regard is the time available to work with this material in real time during a teaching session. However, we recognise that there is scope to further mainstream critical thinking using the ACRL framework.
The language of information literacy can, at times, be problematic. For example, in their communications with one of the authors and/or in their papers, students referred to the work in this assessment task as ‘the library session’ or ‘the session run by the librarian’. We wonder if, for these learners, even if not for all the others, they heard what they wanted to hear, filtered by their prior experiences of information literacy instruction; rather than the deeper, critical and reflective skills and dispositions that we were jointly seeking to foster. We surmise that the legacy of a more programmatic approach to information literacy instruction may, at least in the short term, interfere with the powerful opportunities for revitalising information literacy instruction that the recent work by the ACRL has opened up.
Finally, there will always be limits to authenticity in artificial learning environments. Although the task that we studied was embedded in a more extensive set of authentic tasks, it was, nonetheless, constructed for the purpose of learning. As we were told by some students, this characteristic of ‘real, but not real’, meant that it was difficult for them to immerse themselves in the journey that we were asking them to take with us. This points to a larger question regarding the nature of authenticity and the best ways to enact this. But, we remain convinced that the turn towards constructivism in the way information literacy provides an exciting opportunity to support authentic assessment.
Disclosure Statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Notes on Contributors
Chrys Gunasekara is a senior lecturer in Management at Charles Sturt University. Chrys has been passionate about connecting information literacy and authentic assessment tasks for many years. He has worked closely with information professional staff at several Australian universities on projects to embed information literacy in a systematic, sensitive and informed way into business curricula. Chrys’s research interests span information literacy and the scholarship of learning and teaching in management.
Carole Gerts is a faculty liaison librarian at Charles Sturt University Library, where she supports the research and teaching activities of CSU academic staff and researchers. Carole has worked in a variety of roles for the Division of Library Services at Charles Sturt University since 2001, including Interlibrary Loans team leader, Information librarian and team leader (Northern Campuses) Information Services. Carole holds a Bachelor of Arts in Library and Information Science and a Master of Information Architecture. She has been a sessional lecturer for the School of Information Studies at Charles Sturt University since 2008, where she is involved in teaching, assessment marking and subject development activities for undergraduate and postgraduate courses.
Related Research Data
References
- Asher, A., Duke, L., & Wilson, S. (2012). Paths of discovery: Comparing the search effectiveness of EBSCO Discovery service, Summon, Google Scholar, and conventional library resources. College & Research Libraries, 64(5), 464–488.
- Association of College and Research Libraries. (2016). Framework for information literacy for higher education.
- Beck, S., Blake-Campbell, B., & McKay, D. (2012). Partnership for the advancement of information literacy in a nursing program. Community & Junior College Libraries, 18(1), 3–11.10.1080/02763915.2012.651957
- Bryan, J. (2014). Critical thinking, information literacy and quality enhancement plans. Reference Services Review, 42(3), 388–402.10.1108/RSR-01-2014-0001
- Donham, J., & Steele, M. (2007). Instructional intervention across the inquiry process. College & Undergraduate Libraries, 14(4), 3–18.
- Francis, M., & Wingrove, D. (2017). More than a feeling: Reflecting on identity and the reality of practice through a library and academic development collaboration. Journal of the Australian Library and Information Association, 66(1), 42–49.10.1080/00049670.2017.1282926
- Frey, B., Schmitt, V., & Allen, J. (2012). Defining authentic classroom assessment. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 17(2), 1–18.
- Gardner, H. (1993). Multiple intelligences: The theory and practice. New York, NY: Basic Books.
- Gilbert, S. (2017). Information literacy skills in the workplace: Examining early career advertising professionals. Journal of Business & Finance Librarianship, 22(2), 111–134.10.1080/08963568.2016.1258938
- Gunasekara, C. (2008). Fostering independent learning and critical thinking in management higher education using an information literacy framework. Journal of Information Literacy, 2(2), 74–85.
- Holliday, W., Dance, B., Davis, E., Fagerheim, B., Hedrich, A., Lundstrom, K., & Martin, P. (2015). An information literacy snapshot: Authentic assessment across the curriculum. College & Research Libraries, 76(2), 170–187.
- Howitt, D. (2010). Introduction to qualitative methods in psychology. Harlow, UK: Financial Times Prentice Hall.
- Ivey, R. (2003). How do librarians and academics work in partnership to deliver effective learning programs? Australian Academic & Research Libraries, 34(2), 11–113.
- Jacobson, T., & Gibson, C. (2015). First thoughts on implementing the framework for information literacy. Communications in information literacy, 9(2), 102–110.
- Janesick, V. J. (2006). Authentic assessment. New York, NY: Peter Lang.
- Kahlke, R., & White, J. (2013). Critical thinking in health sciences education: Considering ‘three waves’. Creative Education, 4(12A), 221–229.
- Newman, F., Brandt, R., & Wiggins, G. (1998). An exchange of views on semantics, psychometrics, and assessment reform: A close look at ‘authentic assessment’. Educational Researcher, 27(6), 19–22.
- Osborn, J. (2017). Librarians as teachers: Forming a learning and teaching community of practice. Journal of the Australian Library and Information Association, 66(2), 166–169.
- Seeber, K. (2015). Teaching ‘format’ as a process in an era of Web-scale discovery. Reference Services Review, 43(1), 19–30.
- Tang, Y., & Tseng, H. W. (2013). Distance learners’ self-efficacy and information literacy skills. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 39, 517–521.10.1016/j.acalib.2013.08.008
- Thornes, S. (2012). Creating an online tutorial to support information literacy and academic skills development. Journal of information literacy, 6(1), 82–95.
- Wallace, E., & Jefferson, R. (2013). Developing critical thinking skills for information seeking success. New Review of Academic Librarianship, 19, 246–255.
- Weaver, K., & Tuten, J. (2014). The critical inquiry imperative: information literacy and critical inquiry as complementary concepts in higher education. College & Undergraduate Libraries, 21, 136–144.
- Weiner, J. M. (2011). Is there a difference between critical thinking and information literacy? A systematic review 2000–2009. Journal of Information Literacy, 5(2), 81–92.
- Wiggins, G. (1993). Assessing student performance: Exploring purpose and limits of testing. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
- Zhang, W. (2001). Building partnerships in liberal arts education: library team teaching. Reference Services Review, 29(2), 141–150.
Appendix 1
Guidelines for evaluating information sources
The CRAP test
Before applying this test to evaluate information, you need to have thought about the key elements in your question and the possible issues that they might raise. This will inform your application of this test.
CRAP Test
Currency
Is the information recent enough for your topic?
| • | Has it been published in the last x years (x will vary, depending on your discipline and topic.) | ||||
| • | Note that applying a rule such as 5 years is indicative. You must examine the content of the document to make a final determination of currency in regard to your information need. | ||||
Relevance
How relevant is the information for your topic?
| • | Is there relevant content in the source for your information need? | ||||
| • | How is the source relevant? What does the source contribute to your information need? (e.g. it might provide a commentary or an example(s) or an alternative view to another source.) | ||||
Authority
How authoritative is the information?
| • | Does the author have the credentials to produce the information? (First, think about what credentials are satisfactory.) | ||||
| • | Is the source peer reviewed, or its validity confirmed explicitly in some other way? | ||||
| • | What evidence has been provided to support the claims made in the source? | ||||
| • | How has this evidence been collected? | ||||
| • | Are there any concerns or limitations in the quality of the evidence? | ||||
| • | Are there any specific gaps in the author’s reasoning in forming conclusions? (e.g. does the author tend to look at one side of the issue/point and ignore/downplay others?) | ||||
Purpose
What is the relationship between the author’s purpose in producing the source and the quality of the information that it contains?
| • | What is the relationship between the author and the information? (e.g. is there an explicit commercial interest?) If so, how might this impact on quality? | ||||
Is the information provided clearly biased in some way that compromises its quality? (Note: distinguish here between limitations of the information, e.g. scope and bias.)