This report provides a comprehensive evaluation of three approaches to implementing student information literacy modules in K–12 schools: purchasing commercial modules, developing modules in-house, and adopting a hybrid model that combines both strategies. Each option is analyzed in terms of instructional value, cost-effectiveness, staff workload, scalability, platform compatibility, equity, accessibility, and long-term sustainability. These approaches are examined against the standards and frameworks established by the American Association of School Librarians (AASL) and the International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE), both of which define the critical competencies students need to locate, evaluate, and use information responsibly in the 21st century.
Purchasing commercial modules provides immediate access to high-quality, professionally designed instruction with minimal staff workload, though it carries recurring subscription costs and limited customization (School Library Journal [SLJ], 2017). Creating in-house modules offers full local control, deep alignment with curricula, and long-term cost savings, but requires significant staff labor, careful planning, and ongoing maintenance (Massachusetts Library System [MLS], 2023). The hybrid approach combines the best features of both strategies, enabling schools to deliver immediate, standards-aligned instruction while gradually developing a repository of locally tailored modules to ensure relevance, resilience, and equity.
Comparative analysis indicates that the hybrid model provides the strongest balance of instructional quality, financial efficiency, scalability, and sustainability. A phased implementation strategy is recommended, beginning with vendor adoption to establish baseline coverage, followed by incremental in-house development that contextualizes skills for local assignments and resources. This model aligns with best practices in instructional design and digital literacy implementation, ensuring that all students receive equitable, accessible, and engaging information literacy instruction that supports academic success and lifelong learning.
Information literacy is a foundational competency in modern K–12 education, as students face an overwhelming abundance of information from digital, print, and multimedia sources. The ability to locate, evaluate, and ethically use information is no longer optional; it is a prerequisite for academic success, informed citizenship, and effective participation in an increasingly complex digital society (American Association of School Librarians [AASL], 2018). Research from the Stanford History Education Group’s Civic Online Reasoning project has shown that most middle and high school students struggle to differentiate credible sources from misinformation, underscoring the need for systematic instruction in information literacy skills (Wineburg et al., 2016).
National and international frameworks provide clear guidance for integrating information literacy into K–12 curricula. The AASL’s six Shared Foundations—Inquire, Include, Collaborate, Curate, Explore, and Engage—emphasize inquiry, ethical participation, and knowledge curation across all subject areas (AASL, 2018). The International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) Standards for Students similarly prioritize digital citizenship, knowledge construction, and the critical evaluation of information (ISTE, 2016). Together, these frameworks form a comprehensive vision for developing student competencies that extend beyond academic research to include lifelong learning and civic responsibility.
Information literacy modules provide a scalable mechanism to deliver consistent instruction across multiple grade levels, classrooms, and campuses. Modules are typically multimedia-rich, self-paced lessons that can be embedded into learning management systems (LMS) such as Canvas, Schoology, or Google Classroom. They often include quizzes, interactive exercises, and performance tracking features that provide immediate feedback to students and actionable data for teachers. The use of modules also aligns with the principles of Universal Design for Learning (UDL), ensuring that students with diverse abilities can access content in multiple modalities, including video, text, and interactivity (CAST, 2018).
Schools generally face three strategic choices for implementing these modules: purchasing commercial content, creating modules in-house, or adopting a hybrid model. Each approach carries implications for instructional quality, staffing, cost, equity, and long-term viability. A thorough evaluation of these models is critical for designing a sustainable, high-impact information literacy program.
Option 1: Purchasing Commercial Information Literacy Modules
Purchasing commercial modules provides K–12 schools with immediate access to high-quality, professionally developed instruction. Vendors such as Credo (Infobase), ProQuest Research Companion, Gale, and EBSCO produce interactive tutorials, video lessons, and quizzes designed by instructional designers and librarians (SLJ, 2017).
The instructional value of vendor modules is high due to their polished production and alignment with recognized standards. For example, Credo’s InfoLit Modules contain 24 multimedia lessons covering the full research cycle, including source evaluation, database searching, and plagiarism avoidance (Infobase, 2023). Lessons are concise, interactive, and often scenario-based, which enhances student engagement and retention in accordance with cognitive load theory (Sweller et al., 2019). Vendor content is particularly effective for ensuring that all students, regardless of class or teacher, receive consistent foundational instruction in information literacy.
Commercial modules also offer scalability and accessibility. They integrate seamlessly with LMS platforms via Learning Tools Interoperability (LTI) and support Google Classroom sharing and single sign-on. Vendor modules are typically WCAG 2.1 compliant, providing closed captions, transcripts, and keyboard navigation to ensure equitable access for students with disabilities and English Language Learners (U.S. Department of Education, 2020).
The primary drawbacks of this model are recurring cost and limited customization. Subscriptions can range from approximately $1,500 annually for smaller implementations to several thousand dollars for district-wide access. If funding lapses, content access ends immediately. Moreover, vendor modules often remain generic, providing only limited opportunities to integrate local library workflows, state database resources, or assignment-specific examples.
In practice, commercial modules are best suited for districts requiring rapid deployment or those with limited library staffing. A suburban district in New York, for example, adopted Credo InfoLit across its high schools to ensure consistent research instruction before senior projects. Administrators cited standardization and reporting capabilities as primary benefits, although librarians supplemented modules with local content to improve contextual relevance.
Option 2: Creating In-House Information Literacy Modules
Developing modules in-house gives schools complete control over instructional content, design, and alignment to local curriculum. Lessons can explicitly reference the school’s catalog, subscription databases, and academic policies, which enhances relevance and facilitates skill transfer to classroom assignments (Valenza, 2018).
A variety of low-cost tools support in-house module creation. H5P allows educators to produce interactive quizzes, branching scenarios, and multimedia timelines compatible with LMS platforms (MLS, 2023). Edpuzzle enables teachers to embed questions and discussion prompts directly into instructional videos, transforming them into interactive lessons (Journal of the Medical Library Association [JMLA], 2021). Genially supports gamified, visually dynamic modules, while Canva and Google Slides provide accessible options for creating visual tutorials and step-by-step guides.
Financially, in-house creation is cost-effective over the long term. Most tools are free or offer educator licenses under $200 annually. The significant investment is in staff labor: a complete module suite may require 200–400 hours of initial creation and 100–150 hours per year for maintenance. Once created, however, the content is fully owned by the school, independent of vendor pricing or availability. Sustainability requires proper documentation, shared storage, and training to ensure continuity if staff changes occur.
Accessibility and equity considerations are critical. Unlike vendor products, in-house modules require staff to manually add captions, transcripts, and alternative text to meet WCAG 2.1 standards (U.S. Department of Education, 2020). Schools serving diverse populations may also produce bilingual or simplified-language versions to ensure inclusion. Although this adds to the workload, it allows for highly localized and culturally responsive instruction.
Real-world implementations demonstrate the benefits. A rural Pennsylvania district built a complete research skills curriculum using Google Slides and Edpuzzle, fully integrated into Google Classroom. Students reported increased confidence in research tasks, and the district saved thousands annually after discontinuing vendor subscriptions. Similarly, an urban middle school used Genially to design culturally responsive modules tied to community-based history projects, increasing engagement and reinforcing skill relevance.
Option 3: Hybrid Approach
The hybrid approach combines vendor modules for foundational coverage with locally developed modules for contextualization, offering the best balance of quality, flexibility, and sustainability (Valenza, 2018).
Vendor modules provide immediate, polished instruction that aligns with national standards and ensures equity and accessibility. In-house modules then bridge this general instruction to the school’s local resources, assignments, and policies. This combination allows students to first learn universal principles of research and information evaluation and then directly apply them in authentic, locally relevant contexts.
Financially, the hybrid model distributes cost and workload. Schools typically license a reduced vendor package while allocating moderate staff time to create a few key local modules each semester. Over time, reliance on vendor content can decrease as in-house expertise and resources grow. This phased model ensures continuity if budgets are reduced or if staff turnover affects local production.
Equity and accessibility are enhanced under a hybrid system. Vendor modules guarantee baseline WCAG compliance and closed captioning, while in-house modules can be customized to address local needs, such as bilingual instruction or compatibility with specific assistive technologies (U.S. Department of Education, 2020).
Districts implementing hybrid models report strong results. A suburban Illinois district initially adopted Credo InfoLit for grades 7–10 and gradually developed local modules using H5P and Google Slides. By year three, vendor subscriptions were reduced by 30 percent as in-house content expanded. A California charter high school without a full-time librarian relied on ProQuest Research Companion while using Edpuzzle to create local lessons on organizing sources in Google Workspace. Both cases highlight the hybrid model’s adaptability and resilience.
Comparative Analysis
Each approach involves distinct trade-offs in cost, labor, instructional engagement, equity, and sustainability. Vendor purchase is predictable and low-labor but financially dependent. In-house creation is cost-effective and highly relevant but labor-intensive and staff-dependent. The hybrid model distributes risk, optimizes both short- and long-term outcomes, and supports phased growth (Trust & Maloy, 2022).
Table 1
Three-Year Cost and Staffing Projection for Information Literacy Module Models
| Year | Vendor Purchase Cost | Staff Hours | In-House Creation Cost | Staff Hours | Hybrid Cost | Staff Hours |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | $5,000 | 50 | $12,000 | 400 | $8,000 | 200 |
| 2 | $5,200 | 50 | $3,000 | 120 | $6,000 | 150 |
| 3 | $5,400 | 50 | $3,000 | 120 | $6,000 | 150 |
| Total | $15,600 | 150 | $18,000 | 640 | $20,000 | 500 |
The table illustrates that while the hybrid approach has slightly higher total cost than a single-method model, it provides the best balance of instructional quality, flexibility, and long-term program sustainability.
Recommendations
A phased hybrid model is the recommended strategy for most K–12 schools. In the first year, adopt vendor modules to provide immediate, standards-aligned instruction, while simultaneously developing a small set of local modules for high-priority contexts. In years two and three, expand in-house content to cover additional assignments and databases, gradually reducing reliance on vendor products. By year three or four, the district will maintain a sustainable library of high-quality modules that combine vendor polish with local relevance.
This approach ensures equitable, accessible, and consistent information literacy instruction while building long-term independence. Students will exit the program with stronger research skills, critical thinking abilities, and ethical awareness, better prepared to navigate the complex information environments of higher education and civic life (Wineburg et al., 2016).
References
American Association of School Librarians. (2018). National school library standards for learners, school librarians, and school libraries. ALA.
CAST. (2018). Universal Design for Learning guidelines version 2.2. CAST, Inc. http://udlguidelines.cast.org
Head, A. J., Wihbey, J., Metaxas, P. T., MacMillan, M., & Cohen, D. (2020). How students engage with news: Five takeaways for educators, journalists, and librarians. Project Information Literacy Research Report. https://projectinfolit.org
Infobase. (2023). Information literacy – Core overview. https://infobase.com
International Society for Technology in Education. (2016). ISTE standards for students. https://www.iste.org/standards
Journal of the Medical Library Association. (2021). Edpuzzle review: Interactive video lessons for education. JMLA, 109(2), 324–326. https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2021.1132
Massachusetts Library System. (2023). Interactive tutorials with H5P. https://guides.masslibsystem.org/h5p
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common Core State Standards for English Language Arts & Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects. NGA & CCSSO.
School Library Journal. (2017). Case study: Using Credo SKILL modules to support high school research. SLJ. https://www.slj.com
Sweller, J., Ayres, P., & Kalyuga, S. (2019). Cognitive load theory (2nd ed.). Springer.
Trust, T., & Maloy, R. W. (2022). Preparing teachers for blended learning: Understanding technology integration in K–12 classrooms. TechTrends, 66(2), 137–148. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-021-00674-7
U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights. (2020). Accessibility of online content under Section 504 and Title II of the ADA. https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/frontpage/faq/rr/policyguidance/index.html
Valenza, J. (2018). Aligning AASL and ISTE standards in school library programs. Knowledge Quest, 46(5), 34–41.
Wineburg, S., McGrew, S., Breakstone, J., & Ortega, T. (2016). Evaluating information: The cornerstone of civic online reasoning. Stanford History Education Group. https://stacks.stanford.edu