URN_NBN_SI_doc-1D4XMATL

International good practice in information literacy education   Knjižnica, 2018, 62 (1–2), 169–185 179 make, and it may be difficult to distinguish issues due to culture from those due to language or previous educational curricula. Montiel-Overall (2007) presented an outline for a ‘cultural information literacy’, at once constructivist and critical, avoiding didactic skills instruction, and relying on reflection rather than testing for self-assessment. Similarly, relatively few writers have used any recognised framework in analysing cultural differences. Where a framework has been used, it is invariably Hofstede’s ‘Five Dimensions of Culture’ (Gill 2017; Hofstede, Hofstede, & Minkov, 2010). Hof- stede’s theory analyses a culture or society in terms of six axes: power distance (degree of inequality); individualism (relative importance of individual and col- lective achievement); masculinity (importance of traditional male role model); uncertainty avoidance (tolerance for ambiguity and unstructured situations); long term orientation (extent of respect for tradition and social obligations); and indulgence (opposed to self-restraint). (The sixth dimension was added in 2010, to that some earlier papers on the applicability of Hofstede’s ideas to IL education use only five dimensions.) Hicks (2013) argues that the older forms of IL models, such as the ACRL Standards are poorly suited to deal with cultural aspects of IL. Špiranec (2017) suggests that critical information literacy, because of its support for multiple perspec- tives and support for societal as well as personal development, offers the best framework for IL instruction in transitional and post-conflict societies, such as Croatia. She suggests that this is better supported by approaches such as the ACRL Framework, rather than more prescriptive and determined approaches such as the ACRL Standards. Petermanec and Šebjan (2017) note the modifica- tions needed to survey instruments to assess IL levels, to allow for local variations in academic norms, and availability of resources and databases, in their case in Slovenia. Russell and Houlihan (2017) suggest that standard IL frameworks may be adapted to local conditions and local cultures, with adaptions such as use of locally relevant examples and images, simplified language, avoidance of slang and colloquialisms, and avoidance of popular culture examples which are easily misunderstood. The most extensive set of studies of IL education in different cultural settings have been those of Dorner and Gorman, drawing on analyses of the contexts of Asia and Oceania, and summarised in Dorner (2017). These argue for explicit consideration of cultural factors, using Hofstede’s dimensions, in planning IL education in developing countries. They argue in favour of models using a criti- cal form of IL, and against those based on the older skills-based frameworks, especially approaches based on Bloom’s taxonomy, as these may not be suitable for all cultures. They suggest that student-centred learning may not appropriate