Open Learning 2018: a cMOOC

Have you heard about this cMOOC on Open Learning?  I have only just learned that the c is about connection and community, and c courses are free-form in nature.  They have no formal structure or assignments as other MOOCs have.

Beyond that I am still wrapping my head around what a cMOOC is and whether I am up for the challenge.  Stephen Downes in his blog post, Becoming MOOC, lays it out very eloquently.  I appreciate his explanation of the types of literacies that appropriate for a cMOOC: 21st century literacies and digital literacies through references to the Framework for 21st Century Learning put out by The Partnership for 21st Century Skills and the Mozilla Foundation’s Web Literacy Map.  Sadly, my explanation of his post would pale in comparison to what Stephen has written.  I guess I have not yet become MOOC.  Please take the time to read his post.

What I can say is that, unless you have the skills associated with these literacies, your chances of being successful in a cMOOC are probably slim.  So, when considering whether to ‘enroll’ in a cMOOC you need to ask yourself if you have these skills:

  • collaboration
  • creativity
  • communication
  • critical thinking
  • workplace skills
  • information media skills
  • traditional core types of literacy and numeracy
  • exploring (within the “chaotic environment”)
  • building (aka content creation like authoring and art)
  • connecting (it is primarily about being social)

Or, do you feel that you can develop these skills well enough and quickly enough through the course of the cMOOC to be an effective contributor?  Do you have, as Downes quotes K. Brennan, ‘self-efficacy’ to achieve success in the cMOOC?  A tough question, I know.  My answer is, ‘I hope so.’

Advertisements

Topic 3.2 Is there truly a global perspective on metaliteracy? Or is metaliteracy global?

December has just about come and gone.  The semester is long gone.  And 2013 is about to disappear.  And yet I am still slogging thorough the metaliteracy material.  Whew!  I do like the MOOC format but my pace is far slower that the projected time for the folks who took the course for credit.  Many congratulations to them who completed the course in that timeframe.  Nonetheless I am continuing . . . when I can.

Thinking back to Paul Prinsloo’s talk on a global perspective on metaliteracy, I found that, just prior to his talk, I was becoming comfortable with the definition of metaliteracy.  And then Paul went and blew it all apart.  (Apologies, this is going to be a bit of a brain dump.  But if you go and listen to Paul’s talk you will understand why.) [This is from a journal entry back on 11.15.13] I think what jumps out is the fluidity and liquid nature of metaliteracy.  Metaliteracy actually makes more sense  than what seems to be a somewhat static definition from Tom and Trudi.  Paul expanded/blew up the definition and got me thinking about the context.  I think Paul’s emphasis on having a ‘critical consciousness’ for metaliteracy as agency moves my understanding of metaliteracy from a concept word and noun to an action word and verb.  This definition makes metaliteracy far more multi-faceted.  More complicated?  Yes.  Harder to understand?  Grasp?  Maybe.  Really, I think this global perspective clarifies what it is, defines it.  I also appreciate how Paul’s ideas ask some poignant questions that force one to think deeply and ask more questions.  In his talk Paul really took metaliteracy and broke it down and built on it at the same time.  What metaliteracy seems to be is critical thinking on steroids.

[This is from another journal entry on 12.4.13]  I like this idea of ‘liquid’ metaliteracy and how one should read the world before reading the word (Freire), how nothing is neutral and Paul’s (in)conclusions.  What Paul does is contextualizes metaliteracy within the global framework.  And although I felt like the metaliteracy rug had been yanked out from under me, what Paul talked and said made sense.  Once I understood his point(s), it became logical that it is necessary to frame metaliteracy in this way.  Without this frame, one cannot really understand what metaliteracy is, why it is important, how it is significant, and the kinds of impacts it has, and can have, on so many different things, people, topics/subjects, thought processes . . . etc. etc. etc.  Metaliteracy cannot be viewed without a global perspective.  And, originally, I thought Paul was only giving his perspective on metaliteracy.  But, upon long reflection and review of my notes, I realized he was, and is, talking about metaliteracy globally.  Metaliteracy is global.  I also appreciated his point about  how, in this networked age, ‘not all [meaning people] are included, but all are affected’ in this Meta/discourse literacy.  It effects everyone, but not everyone is a participant.  Also, his second (in)conclusion [I love that word]: ‘It is crucial to understand who produces (and consumes) information, for what purpose, what claims are made, and who/what supports/excludes the producers and claims.’

To answer my question(s) from this post’s title.  Although I think I already did.  Metaliteracy is global.  Trying to argue that there is a global perspective on metaliteracy is shortsighted and suggests a lack of understanding of what metaliteracy is and can do.  Unless, you want to say that one cannot truly be metaliterate without a global perspective.

Topic 3.1: Confession: OERs scare me

Ok.  I have been delaying this post because (1) I have been really busy with work and family and (2) I’m not quite sure what to say about OERs beyond the fact that they terrify me.  Don’t get me wrong, I like the concept, I agree we should be sharing and using ideas and materials.  But using OERs in the classroom seems like it would be a lot of work.  Mark and Michele’s talk was great.  The talk really got me thinking about the many facets to OERs.  There is  a lot to think about.  And as a librarian who does instruction on how to do research and is always looking for new ideas, I’m still not brave enough to explore beyond the mainstream.  My concerns are partly due to not knowing if OERs have been properly vetted and being unsure about vetting them myself.  And I am also not confident enough to actually contribute something of my own.  So, at this point, all I can say about OERs is, yes, I think they are a cool idea, but I’m not ready to go there.  I need to get some more information and feedback on OERs before I would be willing to dive into that arena.  Given my time constraints and all the other things in my life demanding attention, I’m concerned I cannot give these materials the attention they need to then turn around and use them constructively and effectively in the classroom.  However I do like the idea of their use as part of a way to supplement and enhance a primary text or texts (not necessarily a textbook) in a class.

Topic 2 Metacognition readings and talk . . . Ok who was eating chips while Char was talking?

I am finally almost caught up.  I still need to finish up some of the readings that Char recommended.  The Schraw and Moshman article is very dense, so it is taking a while for me to get through and then I can move on to the Flavell.

In terms of how these readings have resonated for me I think the article on the big six information skills by Sara Wolf was the most significant.  As an academic librarian, it made me think a little more carefully about how I teach my library sessions and how I can approach some of the research concepts differently as I present them to my students.  I will definitely be thinking more carefully about how I present skills 2 (Information Seeking Strategies) and 3 (Location and Access) as I teach sessions this semester in an effort to get them to apply metacognition to their research process(es).  Wish me luck!

The Schraw and Moshman, while informative, seemed much more in the vein of theoretical background information on metacognition.  Yes, useful information, but I fail to see how to apply the concepts included to my own metacognitive practice, as well as in the classroom.  And of course I still have to read the Flavell.  Sorry . . .

Char’s talk, great, she is always awesome, also enjoyed the recording of the closing keynote, but I got more out of her responses to questions that from her actual presentation, which seemed to simply be an outline of the readings.  Although I’m glad I both listened to the talk and read the articles.  (Or will read the articles ;P)

In the midst of all the materials for this topic I really was impressed with how much metacognition informs the practices of metaliteracy.  Although I see a slight difference in the sense that metacognition seems to be more engagement with oneself and one’s thinking, where as metaliteracy’s focus is on engagement with others and the conversations surrounding a particular topic.  It is that engagement piece that keeps bubbling up to the surface as I think about these concepts.  Interesting . . .

Now, about the activity about sharing metaliteracy terms and concepts.  Still working on it, but I have a few things . . . soon.

Finally got through the topic 1 readings . . . still fascinated . . . still somewhat confused

Hi, I’m still behind but still very much motivated to continue.  I just finished the articles from topic 1 on transparency and reframing information literacy.

I want to start by following up from my last post and attempt to answer the question about what a Metaliterate Learner is.  Basically, and forgive me as I am still developing my ability to articulate these concepts as clearly as others, it is someone who is information literate and can navigate across multiple platforms online to find and disseminate information and then create and contribute content/information to the ongoing conversation of the topic of their choice.  Yes, I know, probably not exactly an accurate definition and clearly clunky, but putting a definition into words at least helps me enhance my understanding of metaliteracy overall. 

As for my reaction to the articles, I think I have a much better understanding of what metaliteracy is.  Although, the skeptic in me says: Isn’t metaliteracy, as it has been defined and fleshed out in the Mackey and Jacobson article, just the 21st century definition of information literacy?  I will admit, I’m still struggling with the relationship between metaliteracy and information literacy.  I know some of you will chime in and stress the creation part of metaliteracy as an aspect that is different from information literacy, but I’m not completely convinced.  Couldn’t one argue that the creation of content online part is simply part of what information literacy is today?  I don’t know . . . maybe it is just my novice showing through.

Finally, while reading these articles, especially the one on transparency, I became increasingly impressed about how this MOOC is practicing what Tom describes.  The entire class demonstrates all the characteristics of transparent design that he outlines, thus making it very easy to understand what he is writing about.  Pretty cool.

Ok, back to work and some topic 2 materials.  Maybe I can make a dent in them before Wednesday’s talk.  Maybe . . .

Dipping my toe into the Metaliteracy MOOC waters

I have wanted to start a blog for a while.  Last week I joined the Metaliteracy MOOC and one of the suggestions is to link your blog to the course and write about the class.  So, here I am.  I will admit I’m a little late to the class but I am here nonetheless.  Part of my hesitation for joining is due to the fact that I am an academic librarian and of course we are only in our fourth week of classes.  It is a bit hectic around here.  Also, the word metaliteracy confused me and intimidated the heck out of me.  But, the more I thought about the class I realized it was an important topic and that I should try to join the conversation.

So, I listened to the first talk yesterday in the midst of processing interlibrary loan requests, checking email, talking to colleagues and watching the clock for my approaching Reference Desk shift at 10 am.  I tried to take some notes as I listened on the questions Tom Mackey posed.  Here is some of what I came up with, as well as some additional thoughts as I write.  And, I will admit, I haven’t done the readings yet.  I’ll sneak a bit of that in today between teaching, a faculty meeting, more interlibrary loan and a Reference Desk shift late this afternoon.

What is metaliteracy? (this is coming prior to me reading any definitions)

  • knowledge,adept, active participant, skilled, expert?, lifetime learner
  • meta-core, key, about, beyond
  • literacy about literacy? (although now I don’t think this is really hitting the mark, but that is what I put in my brainstorming notes)

What is a Metaliterate Learner?

  • Honestly, I didn’t know how to answer this one.  I decided I would get to the end of Talk 1 and do the readings.  

How different is metaliteracy from information literacy?

  • knowledge beyond just engaging with the information and thinking critically . . . knowing how to take information and using it to engage with others and create new information and knowledge

I hope I’m not too far off the mark.  So far, the class is really fascinating.  I really want to stick with it, provided I am able to catch up.  I will try to follow up with another post once I finish the readings.

And as far is the whole blog is concerned, I will eventually morph it into something else.  But for now I think I will use it exclusively for the Metaliteracy MOOC.