"Information Overload? Maybe Not."

The contrarian title of this article caught me.  As did this opening paragraph:

"Here's a common observance, popular with librarians and in the mainstream media: We're drowning in information. The biggest problem we have is silting through all that data flying at us. I wondered if it's just information professionals who worry about this, so I polled 13 undergraduate students to get their views. Their response? Blank stares. They simply did not know what I was talking about."

The author, an associate librarian at Trinity Western University, looks at the information literacy/overload problem from the (I feel rather accurate) perspective that our youth doesn't really see a pressing problem, and have developed their own habits (how good these habits are is up for debate) of dealing with it.

To summarize, he gives three options.  The first is to give up on teaching information literacy.  It's been minimally effective, expensive, and there's reason to believe that interfaces for search will become better, smarter, and simpler, and "recommendation" services like netflix and amazon will get better and better.  Of course, there will still never be a good "star rating" for most info, so we can't really do this, he says.  I agree.

Another option is to "cover the basics," something libraries and schools are doing now, because they don't have the resources to do more.  This covers "one-shot" programs and talks, like the kind I was exposed to growing up.  But, he argues, info literacy is like learning a language, and takes years to master.  One-shot classes just aren't enough.  I would agree that they aren't enough.  On the other hand, if we take such a long and broad view of info literacy (and saying it takes years to learn definitely is broad, I would also suggest its a lifelong process) almost puts it in the realm of a sort of professional degree!   I think it should be stressed during other classes--every basic class at least from a middle school level has a strong use for info literacy--but it will be a challenge to keep a distinct focus apart from the aims of any given course (teaching kids science, for example is hard enough.)


The last and ultimate option, of course, is to "make it foundational."  Establish it as a new foundational subject, and start them young.  The strongest case for this goes back to the old complaint of students, "when am I ever going to use this?"  Well, you would think info literacy would be an easy sell to add to curriculum as its exceedingly easy to answer that question, and its undoubtedly useful.  I would argue that the reason it will be difficult to establish (aside from the fact that it is a painful subject to learn--breaking bad habits and all) is that there is no AP info literacy test, it isn't explicitly on achievement tests, it isn't a well-known college major: it's not part of the academic system.  And the academic system isn't really set up to teach people what they need in many ways, its set up to judge "achievement" and sort people out.  I may be being a bit cyncial, but until "info literacy" can gain traction as one of the subjects Universities and standardized tests can or do measure, it may be difficult to get it as foundational as it really needs to be.  What do you think?

Article citation:
Badke, William. "Information overload? Maybe not." Online 34.5 (2010): 52+. General Reference Center Gold. Web. 30 Jan. 2011.