I feel that the real issue is one of definition (as provided by the teaching librarian) and education: educators should learn about components of information literacy and integrate them into coursework. This is hardly news to librarians.

It is correct to call a single session a ‘class’ in whatever the topic of instruction might be. We may differentiate between skill levels (e.g., ‘Beginning PubMed,’ ‘Intermediate Knitting’) or carve out meaning by identifying particular applications (e.g., ‘Pubmed for Laypeople,’ ‘Library Databases for LIS Doctoral-Level Research’) and yet, each could potentially find its place in a far larger universe of knowledge… It is the responsibility of the educator for each to clearly delineate the class objectives. There is not a single, generic ‘Information Literacy’ class – therefore, it is not logical for you to make claims about their intent.

When you say:

‘When we promote what is really a single instruction event to faculty as an information literacy class we perpetuate the myth that students can become information literate in a single class.’

you’ve skipped handily over all the work that’s been done to connect to educators who did not formerly (and often, still do not) see the need for such training at all.

Why not call a class visit, “Help with Your Research Paper.” While giving that help, the visiting librarian will certainly be promoting info lit values (evaluating sources and so on).

But StevenB’s larger point that information literacy cannot be taught in a single session, is really helpful to keep in mind: it’s salutary for librarians and for students.

What also concerns me, and I didn’t touch on this in the post, is that you often find academic libraries using “information literacy class” terminology in the complete absence of an information literacy initiative. That is, there is no IL plan, no collaboration with faculty, no outcomes, etc. – it’s basically bibliographic instruction being sold as information literacy. So not only is it false advertising, but that’s a perfect case of a non-existant information literacy initiative. But even when there is an initiative, an information literacy class still doesn’t make any sense – you can’t achieve information literacy in a class.

Finally, what you call things can make a difference. It can communicate something important to people. And it can be used to fool people as well. Here’s an example: (from a NYT article from June 13, 2007) Mario Batali scattered organ meat across the menu and presaged the lardo pizza he would serve at Otto with lardo bruschetta, though he didn’t have the nerve to call it that. He told diners that the toasted bread was covered in prosciutto bianco, or white prosciutto, a nonsense term he coined to disguise the truth. “I knew that they wouldn’t eat it if I just said, ‘This is the fat of a pig melted onto toast,’ said Batali. So if you call something an “information literacy class” some people may actually believe that a student who sits through it will be information literate.

In both cases, there is a failure (or, to be more positive, an and facult”opportunity”) on our part to properly calibrate our audience about what to expect. If they don’t understand, then we need to explain. If they don’t care, then we should be making them care. If we overstate the outcomes, then we should dial it back.

Still, where I lose the plot is the focus on the terminology: I find it hard to make the case that the words are at fault – whether its “information literacy” or “library instruction,” it’s what we market to the users that matters.