From basic literacy to information literacy<\/p>\n
By Mochtar Buchori<\/p>\n
JAKARTA (JP): During its 51 years of existence, Indonesia has
\nbeen confronted with four national problems of literacy: basic
\nliteracy, functional literacy, science and technology literacy,
\nand very recently, the problem of information literacy.<\/p>\n
Actually, there is still another problem of literacy on which
\nthe government has spent quite an amount of energy and funds:
\npolitical literacy.<\/p>\n
The \"basic literacy\" problem was essentially a problem of
\neducating the entire nation to read and write using Roman
\nalphabets. This was a very taxing problem at the beginning,
\nbecause by the time Indonesia's independence was proclaimed, the
\nilliteracy rate among Indonesians was very high, about 90
\npercent.<\/p>\n
It became gradually more manageable, however, and resolved
\nitself after the elementary school system was developed to such
\nan extent that all Indonesian children, aged 7 to 12, could be
\naccommodated in the existing schools. By this time, the number of
\nIndonesian citizens who had never had any formal schooling or
\nopportunity to follow non-formal courses in basic literacy had
\ndwindled to an insignificant size. The danger of national
\nilliteracy no longer looked menacing.<\/p>\n
The functional literacy campaign was never as successful as
\nthe basic literacy campaign. The basic idea of functional
\nliteracy was that every Indonesian acquires the ability to read
\npapers --dailies, weeklies, or monthlies-- written in the
\nIndonesian language. In this way, every citizen would be highly
\naware concerning the development of the country, and would thus
\nbe highly aware of both the prospects and worries of the nation.<\/p>\n
Conducting courses to this effect was a very complex task,
\nrequiring instructions in the Indonesian language --remember,
\nIndonesian is only second language to most Indonesians--,
\ngeography, history, local and national government, local
\neconomics, and civic education. This was virtually a program of
\nconducting formal education through non-formal institutions. In
\npractice, courses in this campaign had been transformed into
\ncourses to obtain certificates equivalent to diplomas obtainable
\nonly through formal education.<\/p>\n
The problem of science and technology literacy emerged in
\nIndonesia around 1985. Initially this problem was discussed only
\nwithin limited circles, but gradually it attracted the attention
\nof increasingly wider audiences. The climax of this discussion
\nwas a polemics between two cabinet ministers. The debate was
\nabout how instructions in humanities should be balanced against
\ninstruction in mathematics and natural science within Indonesian
\nschools.<\/p>\n
I personally think that it was a very good debate. But
\napparently, the idea of a public debate between two cabinet
\nministers about a public issue was --and still is, I think-- not
\ntoo appealing to our political culture. Thus the debate that
\nbarely started was discontinued. But the public was already
\nsufficiently stimulated to think seriously about this matter.<\/p>\n
What moved the country toward this new frame of mind?<\/p>\n
It was the realization that new developments in science and
\ntechnology have caused a dramatic change in lifestyles throughout
\nthe world, and that this in turn has brought about new economic,
\nsocial and political landscapes. Having noticed this trend, those
\nIndonesians who happen to be on the vanguard of global dynamics
\nhave come to the conclusion that cultural and educational
\npatterns inherited from the past will no longer suffice to
\nprepare the nation for the coming future. New turns must be made
\nin the conduct of national education.<\/p>\n
At the other extreme of the spectrum were people who were
\n--and still are-- rightly alarmed about the negative impacts of
\nall the progress brought about by science and technology. These
\npeople have insisted that neglecting the study of humanities in
\nour schools will eventually make this nation incapable of
\nunderstanding the true meaning of progress achieved in the field
\nof science and technology, and as such it will not be able to use
\nscientific and technological progress to improve the quality of
\nthe nation's life.<\/p>\n
Before we find something significant in this regard, something
\nwhich can lead us towards an acceptable policy, a new literacy
\nproblem has emerged, that is the problem of information literacy.
\nThis has happened with the arrival of the Internet culture. Now
\nthat it has become possible for us in Indonesia to access the
\nworld-wide information wealth, many important questions arise in
\nour minds: what is all this information ultimately for? Can we do
\nsomething good with it, or do we need it merely to show off our
\n\"modernity\"? How can we prevent abuse and misuse of information?
\nHow do we distinguish true information from manipulated
\ninformation?<\/p>\n
According to Jeremy Shapiro and Shelley K. Hughes, if
\ninformation society is to be a free and humane society, then
\ninformation literacy should be defined to include, in an extended
\nsense, not only knowledge on how to use computers and access
\ninformation but, a critical reflection as well on \"the nature of
\ninformation itself, its technical infrastructure, and its social,
\npolitical, and even philosophical context and impact.\"<\/p>\n
Defined in this way, information literacy must at the end be
\ncapable of serving human society in its strive towards --to
\nquote Antoine Nicholas Condorcet ( 1743-1794)-- \"liberty, virtue,
\nand respect for the natural rights of man.\" Information as a
\ncomponent of knowledge, human mind, and human communication must
\nultimately enable members of the society \"to govern themselves\",
\nto become \"intelligent shapers of their society rather that its
\npawns\", and to humanize their culture, so that human existence
\nwill become more meaningful than \"a mere routine of production
\nand consumption\".<\/p>\n
To achieve this ambitious goal, education towards information
\nliteracy must comprise seven dimensions: tool literacy, resource
\nliteracy, social-structural literacy, research literacy,
\npublishing literacy, emerging technology literacy, and critical
\nliteracy. It is through this last dimension, critical literacy,
\nthat students will be trained in critically evaluating the
\nbenefits and costs of information technologies.<\/p>\n
What about the problem of political literacy? It is basically
\nthe problem of making the entire population gain a healthy
\nunderstanding regarding their rights and duties as citizens of a
\ncountry. If information literacy is to be taught in the way
\noutlined above, it will certainly address the problem of
\npolitical literacy as well. But if instruction in information
\nliteracy is to include only technical courses related to computer
\ntechnology, then political literacy will remain a dream about a
\ndistant future.<\/p>\n
The writer is an observer of social and cultural affairs.<\/p>", "url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/from-basic-literacy-to-information-literacy-1447893297", "image": "" }, "sponsor": "Okusi Associates", "sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com" }