How and why an information source is made, and how it is made available (distributed), is really important.
In the past, we've talked a lot about source type and format. This frame recognizes that new technologies (particularly the internet) have made discussions of format a lot more complicated. Yes, scholars still publish journal articles, but they may also tweet or blog. So Information Creation as a Process is pushing us to look at the process of creating information from the research to writing/creating to revision/editing to publishing, rather than just the finished product (the book or article or or webpage or comment).
One of the frame's dispositions is "resist the tendency to equate format with the underlying creation process." This is a difficult directive even for a professional researcher. The problem is that evaluating a source's creation process requires a lot more background knowledge than learning some basic rules about common formats. The key characteristics of a scholarly journal article can at be introduced, albeit shallowly, in a few minutes. Imagine trying to teach students all the steps that a scholar in the sciences would have had to go through from the beginning of the project to getting it published as a scholarly journal article! There is funding, collaboration, research question, methodology, IRB approval, lab or fieldwork, revision, submission, etc. Therefore, that at the lower undergraduate level librarians and faculty are still mostly going to be teaching format, to provide students a foundation that allows them to move on to a more sophisticate understanding of the processes that lead to those formats.
Most of the ties between the Standards and Information Creation as a Process come under just two performance indicators: Standard One, Indicator 2 (on "types and formats") and Standard Three, Indicator 2 (on evaluating sources).
Students will be able to match common formats with identifying characteristics of their creation processes.
Students will be able to identify general characteristics of the creation processes of different formats or a specific format.
Students will be able to identify strengths/weaknesses of specific formats/creation processes.
Students will be able to recall key aspects of the scholarly creation process.
Students will be able to identify formats that include peer review.
Which of the following sources would have been peer-reviewed? (could provide either a list of source types or, for a more difficult question, a list of citations)
Students will be able to connect format/creation process to a specific need.
Students will be able to describe the peer-review process (or editing process).
Students will be able to discuss a particular information source’s creation process and how it impacts it usefulness (or perceived value) for a particular project (or in a particular social context).
Students will be able to explain the role of publishers in the creation process.
Students will be able to compare and contrast informal online publication formats with traditional print formats.
Students will be able to list common aspects of the creation process in discipline X.
Students will be able to discuss what creation processes are valued in discipline X (or in a particular social context).
Students will be able to discuss the purpose/point of view/bias of specific sources.
Students will be able to summarize the features of the most common web domains and how that impacts the sources found on those domains.
Students will be able to describe potential formats/creation processes that would be appropriate to their research topic.
Students will be able to evaluate potential sources based on aspects of their creation process/format.
Students will be able to evaluate potential sources based on their purpose/intent/bias.
Student will be able to select sources whose formats/creation processes are appropriate to the research topic and assignment parameters. This outcome is very vague as written because the types of formats/creation processes that are considered appropriate varies so much between disciplines and assignments. I imagine that this outcome would include issues like popular vs scholarly, primary vs secondary, general (like reference works) vs specific, emerging vs traditional delivery modes, and factors that are specific to a certain discipline. Ideally the outcome and the rubric criteria would be adjusted to clearly define what is considered appropriate for the particular assignment.