Metaliteracy

In the January issue of College and Research Libraries, authors Mackey and Jacobson write in their article "Reframing Information Literacy as Metaliteracy" that perhaps librarians need to redefine our old stand by Information Literacy to be more inclusive of the types of literacies and competencies that students need today. They suggest that the definition of Information Literacy should be expanded to include Media Literacy, Digital Literacy, Visual Literacy, Cyberliteracy, and Information Fluency. The idea is that by expanding the definition, we would also shift the focus away from a skills based idea of Information Literacy to a more theoretical understanding of Metaliteracy. Metaliteracy, they argue, provides the student with the critical thinking apparatus they need to be information literate, as well as the understanding of how information is dynamically produced and shared online. In other words, Metaliteracy would provide a more comprehensive framework for students to be able to use information effectively, but also to be able to understand and learn how new developments in technology may impact their learning behaviors. So, instead of acquiring skills that may become outdated over time, they acqure an understanding, a world view, if you will, that keeps them open to learning, in whatever form it takes. This is not to say that skills are not important, but that philosophy will inform the skills a student learns. They will learn what they need to--"just in time" to borrow a phrase of the day.
Another topic that has caught my attention lately is the idea that we may want to go back to teaching actual classes in Information Literacy or, if we go along with Mackey and Jacobson, Metaliteracy. I have seen different people put forth that this would be a good idea, not the least--the fact that many colleges are having freshmen take a "seminar" class that is really a big research project to help them learn how to do research. (Princeton does this, as well as Drexel, and I am sure there are others.) By the way, some of them are doing this because they find that college students come to them without the vaguest notion of how to do a "real" research project. All they have ever done is regurgitation. One of the most articulate versions of this can be found here as a guest post on Doug Johnson's blog. I have to say that Ms. Mehsikomer makes a good case. Most teachers do have to concentrate on what gets tested. It is just a fact of life. While we may been taught in library school (how long ago, by the way) that learning information literacy is best done as a part of the content areas, let's be honest. How many of us are able to teach as much as students really need to know? To every student? In my school, and it is a great school, I do get to see most students for at least evaluation. I get to see most of them for some mini-lessons on searching, and using databases. But I really only get to cover the basics, and because of the spotty nature of who and what classes come to the library, some students hear the same mini-lesson three times, while others never hear it. Now, I have learned to try and add something new to each one, to keep people from always hearing the same thing, but what this really means is that there is a basic inequity. Not all students are learning enough about metaliteracy. This brings up one point I would like to add to what Mary says on Doug's blog--Is information, er a metaliteracy just too big a topic to be covered through "integrated" lessons? Philosophically, I think there is enough that students need to know in our ever more complex world, that it would warrant a class of its own.
If any of you are still reading--let's discuss. What do you think?