Twitter is abuzz with comments about metaliteracy, threshold concepts, and frameworks. Information literacy is being reframed, reinvented, and reimagined in articles, books, conference presentations, and lively discussions in the field. What happened to the more traditional elements of information literacy and the iconic ACRL Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education? Why are these alternative models appearing now, and what do they bring to the conversation? This collaborative keynote will provide an opportunity to learn more about these new models, and to reflect on how they might inform your teaching and your students’ learning. We will explore these developments by highlighting key aspects of our new book Metaliteracy: Reinventing Information Literacy to Empower Learners. Trudi Jacobson will also relate these questions to her work as Co-Chair of the ACRL Task Force that is shifting the original standards to a framework informed by a scaffolding of threshold concepts.
Crossing the Threshold: Envisioning Information Literacy through the Lens of Metaliteracy
1. Crossing the Threshold: Envisioning Information
Literacy through the Lens of Metaliteracy
1
Trudi Jacobson & Tom Mackey
#metaliteracy
Our New Frontier: Metaliteracy, Threshold Concepts, New
Standards, and Other Wild Ideas
Friday, June 13, 2014 9:10am-10:40am
Manchester Community College Manchester, Connecticut
2. We’ll speak about…
• Metaliteracy (but of course!)
– Badging
• The IL Framework for Higher Education draft
• Local Implementation
2
5. 5
Figure developed by Mackey, Jacobson, & Roger Lipera
Mackey and Jacobson (2014)
Metaliteracy: Reinventing
Information Literacy to
Empower Learners
6. • “promotes critical thinking and collaboration in
a digital age” (p. 62).
• “comprehensive framework to effectively
participate in social media and online
communities” (p. 62).
• “unified construct that supports the acquisition,
production, and sharing of knowledge in
collaborative online communities” (p. 62).
6
Thomas P. Mackey and Trudi E. Jacobson “Reframing Information Literacy as a Metaliteracy”
College & Research Libraries. January 2011 72:62-78. http://crl.acrl.org/content/72/1/62.full.pdf
7. Metaliteracy: Reinventing Information
Literacy to Empower Learners
(Mackey and Jacobson, 2014).
“Metaliteracy is not about
introducing yet another literacy
format, but rather reinventing an
existing one, information literacy,
the critical foundation literacy that
informs many others while being
flexible and adaptive enough to
evolve and change over time” (p.
1-2).
8. Metaliteracy: Reinventing Information
Literacy to Empower Learners
(Mackey and Jacobson, 2014).
“While literacy is focused on
reading and writing, and
information literacy has strongly
emphasized search and retrieval,
metaliteracy is about what
happens beyond these abilities to
promote the collaborative
production and sharing of
information” (p. 6).
9. Metaliteracy: Advancing Learning After Literacy
(Jacobson and Mackey, 2014):
http://www.okanagan.bc.ca/Assets/Departments+(Administration)/ILT/ILT+Newsletter+(5$!2c1).pdf
“Students rarely see themselves as producers of
information, only as consumers, even though they
may be very creative with emerging technologies
outside of school” (p. 3).
10. “In many cases, they have only produced papers
meant solely for the eyes of their instructors.
Writing for a broader audience, and working in
collaboration with others, requires a new set of
abilities” (p. 3).
Metaliteracy: Advancing Learning After Literacy
(Jacobson and Mackey, 2014):
http://www.okanagan.bc.ca/Assets/Departments+(Administration)/ILT/ILT+Newsletter+(5$!2c1).pdf
11. “Metaliteracy empowers
learners to participate in
interactive information
environments, equipped
with the ability to
continuously reflect,
change, and contribute
as critical thinkers”
(p. 86).
(Jacobson and Mackey, Proposing
a Metaliteracy Model to Redefine
Information Literacy, 2013)
12. 12
Figure developed by Mackey, Jacobson and Roger Lipera
Mackey and Jacobson (2014)
Metaliteracy: Reinventing
Information Literacy to
Empower Learners
13. Metaliteracy is Metacognitive
“This metacognitive approach
challenges a reliance on skills-
based information literacy
instruction only and shifts the
focus to knowledge acquisition in
collaboration with others” (p. 2).
Mackey and Jacobson (2014)
Metaliteracy: Reinventing Information Literacy to
Empower Learners
13
Judith Leyster
Self-portrait, 1630
14. MOOC Talk: Bryan Alexander and Nicola Allain
Metaliteracy MOOC
http://metaliteracy.cdlprojects.com
15. MOOC Talk: Sue Thomas and Michele Forte
Metaliteracy MOOC
http://metaliteracy.cdlprojects.com
16. MOOC Talk: Paul Prinsloo, UNISA, South Africa
Metaliteracy MOOC
http://metaliteracy.cdlprojects.com
17. • 554 registered participants
• 454 received newsletters
• 118 registered blogs
• 72 blog posts
• Students from 3 Information Literacy Courses at
the University at Albany
• 1 Graduate Student at Empire State College
MOOC
18. Massive Open Online Courses
cMOOC:
“cMOOCs are discursive
communities creating knowledge
together.”
• “Connectivism and
Connectivist Knowledge
(George Siemens and Stephen
Downes)
• Creativity & Multicultural
Communication
• Metaliteracy MOOC
xMOOC
“Whilst they include discussion
forums…the centre of the course
is the instructor-guided lesson.
Each student’s
journey/trajectory through the
course is linear and based on the
absorption and understanding of
fixed competencies.”
• EdX
• Coursera
• Canvas Network
18
http://reflectionsandcontemplations.wordpress.com/2012/08/23/
what-is-a-mooc-what-are-the-different-types-of-mooc-xmoocs-and-cmoocs/
20. Intent
Reality
20
Designed for student
engagement and connectivity,
the thoughts of others serve as
critical mechanism for learning
Unfamiliar model,
emphasizes self-directed
choices, no set path;
students severely flounder
24. Badging
• Same idea as Scout badges
• Competency-based learning
• Elements of gaming (quests,
challenges)
• Designated badges are
shareable (LinkedIn, online
portfolios or resumes)
• Associated metadata
indicates issuing
organization, describes
knowledge or skills gained
24
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Scout_Badge_Poncho.jpg
25. Metaliteracy Learning Objectives
Goal 1:
Evaluate content critically,
including dynamic, online
content that changes and
evolves, such as article
preprints, blogs, and wikis.
25
http://metaliteracy.org/learning-objectives/
26. Goal 2:
Understand personal
privacy, information
ethics, and intellectual
property issues in
changing technology
environments
26
http://metaliteracy.org/learning-objectives/
Metaliteracy Learning Objectives
27. Goal 3:
Share information and
collaborate in a variety of
participatory environments
27
http://metaliteracy.org/learning-objectives/
Metaliteracy Learning Objectives
28. Goal 4:
Demonstrate ability to
connect learning and
research strategies with
lifelong learning processes
and personal, academic,
and professional goals
28
http://metaliteracy.org/learning-objectives/
Metaliteracy Learning Objectives
31. Preliminary Observations
Students
• Student engagement
• Quality of submitted work
• Interest in earning badge
– “something unusual to discuss with interviewers”
Faculty
• Evident interest
• Willingness to take the time to review
31
34. Major Elements of the Framework
• New brief Introduction
• How to Use the Framework
• 6 Frames (Threshold Concept Units)
• Further Readings & Glossary
• Setting the Context
• Introduction for Faculty and Administrators
• Online Space (Sandbox) for Continuing
Discussion and Ideas
35. Major Elements of the Framework
• New definition of information literacy,
informed by metaliteracy
• Six Frames, each containing:
• Threshold Concept with descriptions
• Knowledge Practices/Abilities
• Dispositions
• Assignments (to be placed in online space or
sandbox once the Framework is approved)
36. Threshold Concepts
Hofer, Townsend, and Brunetti describe threshold
concepts and their criteria, as based on the work of Jan
Meyer and Ray Land:
…Threshold concepts are the core ideas and processes in any
discipline that define the discipline, but that are so
ingrained that they often go unspoken or unrecognized by
practitioner. They are the central concepts that we want
our students to understand and put into practice, that
encourage them to think and act like practitioners
themselves. (Hofer, Townsend, and Brunetti, 2012, 387-
88)
36
37. 37
Why Threshold Concepts?
“The Task Force chose to use threshold
concepts as an approach to frame deeper
thinking about the role of information
literacy in the curriculum, and to move the
focus of practice from skills to
development of knowledge about the role
of information in students’ fields of study
and in society.“
38. 38
“Threshold concepts reflect the
perspective of experts in our profession
on the most important concepts in our
field, and also provide a developmental
trajectory for assisting our students in
moving from novice to experts in using
and understanding information in a wide
variety of contexts.”
Why Threshold Concepts?
40. IL Threshold Concepts (Six Frames)
40
Scholarship is
a Conversation
Research is
Inquiry
Authority is
Constructed
and Contextual
Format as a
Process
Searching as
Exploration
Information
has Value
The concepts were identified through an ongoing Delphi study being conducted
by L. Townsend, A. R. Hofer, S. Lu, and K. Brunetti
42. First Framework Draft
• Metaliteracy section in the introduction
was too brief
• Metaliteracy learning objectives included
with each threshold concept: caused
confusion
43. Upcoming Draft
• Elements of metaliteracy learning objectives
integrated into knowledge practices/abilities
and dispositions (in 2nd release for those 2
threshold concepts)
• Draft new definition of IL incorporating
elements from metaliteracy
• Metaliteracy is referenced in the new
introduction, as well as in Setting the Context
44. New Definition (draft)
• Information literacy is a repertoire of
understandings, practices, and dispositions focused
on flexible engagement with the information
ecosystem, underpinned by critical self-reflection.
The repertoire involves finding, evaluating,
interpreting, managing, and using information to
answer questions and develop new ones; and
creating new knowledge through ethical
participation in communities of learning, scholarship,
and practice.
46. Upper level IL requirement in the major
Department responsibility
New learning objectives
New conversations
46
General Education Competency Requirements
47. New Metaliteracy inspired learning
objectives at UAlbany
2. “Demonstrate the ability to evaluate content,
including dynamic, online content if
appropriate”
4. “Produce, share, and evaluate information in a
variety of participatory environments”
5. “Integrate learning and research strategies with
lifelong learning processes and personal,
academic, and professional goals”
47
48. Upper level IL
requirement in the major
Threshold concept
badging within
disciplines?
48
System-wide implementation?
49. 49
Innovative Instruction
Technology Grant (IITG)
+
“Designing Innovative Online Learning: Integrating
a Coursera MOOC with Open SUNY Badging”
http://commons.suny.edu/iitg/designing-innovative-online-learning-
integrating-a-coursera-mooc-with-open-suny-badging/
Our next project…
52. ALA Editions Workshop
• Metaliteracy:
Reinventing
Information Literacy to
Empower Learners
• A 90-minute workshop,
Wednesday, June 25, 2014,
2:30pm Eastern
52
53. 53
Trudi E. Jacobson, M.L.S., M.A.
Distinguished Librarian
Head, Information Literacy Department
University Libraries
University at Albany, SUNY
Tom Mackey, Ph.D.
Dean
Center for Distance Learning
Empire State College, SUNY
Editor's Notes
Trudi
Thrilled to be doing a collaborative keynote, embodies our work, thank you for inviting us
Hope you will be as excited
Remind you about Twitter
.Tom Key elements
Tom
Tom
This is our visual model to explain Metaliteracy (pause)
We see this as a flexible, circular model that builds on information literacy with new technologies and competencies (pause)
Metaliteracy expands information literacy to include the ability to produce, participate, share, and collaborate in open learning and social media environments (pause)
Metaliteracy also includes a central focus on metacognition, or the ability to think about one’s thinking.
Today’s learner moves through these spheres from any direction rather than a traditional linear manner
Tom… mention the original article from 2011…
Tom
Tom: “Metaliteracy also includes a metacognitive component and openness to format and mode that is less pronounced
in information literacy” (p. 6).
Tom: Pedagogical Consideration: “Metaliteracy promotes a very different teaching and learning dynamic that needs to be present in the teaching of both groups” (p. 3).
Tom
Tom
Tom: behavioral (what students should be able to do upon successful completion of learning activities—skills, competencies), cognitive (what students should know upon successful completion of learning activities—comprehension, organization, application, evaluation), affective (changes in learners’ emotions or attitudes through engagement with learning activities), and metacognitive (what learners think about their own thinking—a reflective understanding of how and why they learn, what they do and do not know, their preconceptions, and how to continue to learn).
Understands the process of creating and sharing information
Recognizes gaps in knowledge
Seeks new knowledge to adjust to challenging situations
Adapts to changing technologies
Continuously self-reflects
Demonstrates empowerment through interaction, communication, and presentation
Reflects on production and participation
Tom: Need to be on this slide by 9:40 or 9:45 (maybe?) presentation from 9:10-10:40, need to leave time for questions
Stephen Downes and gRSShopper aggretator
Trudi
Came from a grant, ML Learning Collaborative, one of several projects: developing badges for ML
Similarly to developing a course, want to start with learning objectives, and this was no different
Used the ML learning objectives, which have 4 goals, each of which has 5-11 learning objectives
Evaluation is a critical component of being IL, but ML extends this to info environments that are in flux. It requires a more nuanced ability set to be adept at assessing content that changes and accumulates additional layers through participation
A ML goal that overlaps with IL at this level, but looking at the objectives within the goal, there are decided differences from traditional understandings of this area.. Two examples:
Differentiate between the production of original information and remixing or re-purposing open resources (C)
Distinguish the kinds of information appropriate to reproduce and share publicly, and private information disseminated in more restricted/discreet environments (C)
Some divergence from IL, this supposes a more communal or social aspect to metaliteracy
Much overlap with IL at the goal level, but objectives themselves go beyond those found in traditional definitions of IL, for example
Demonstrate self-empowerment through interaction and the presentation of ideas; gain the ability to see what is transferable, translatable, and teachable (learners are both students and teachers)
The faculty and administrator introductions are written by our TF members from CNI and Middle States.
The designation “Frame” is new.
Newest (potential) development—the assignments won’t appear in the document at all, but in another location until the sandbox Is ready
Long have heard that we don’t need to turn students into novice librarians, but actually, the key concepts we understand will only help them
Transformative—cause the learner to experience a shift in perspective;
Integrative—bring together separate concepts (often identified as learning objectives) into a unified whole;
Irreversible—once grasped, cannot be un-grasped;
Bounded—may help define the boundaries of a particular discipline, are perhaps unique to the discipline;
Troublesome—usually difficult or counterintuitive ideas that can cause students to hit a roadblock in their learning.
Really struggled with Searching as Exploration. It started out as the only one describing a behavior, rather than a key concept. There has been a great deal of discussion within the TF as to whether it truly is a TC. And yet there are important elements involved with it that we were loathe to ignore in this document. Information has Value, the TC that has not yet appeared in the draft (new draft coming imminently) proved troublesome because of the commodity aspect. We wanted to include it, but not to overemphasize it.
Want to talk about ML because it has also had a strong impact on our work, but it will be a bit more behind the scenes
Brief because we were originally trying to keep the introduction to 3-4 pages. It was written by 3 different people, and I was the one who took the call for brevity seriously. But that left this section somewhat unbalanced, with inadequate information and insufficient linkages to other text.
Would like to thank Donna Witek, who is here at the conference, for her influential thinking on this topic.