Presenters: Teresa Grettano and Donna Witek Conference on College Composition and Communication, March 18-21, 2015, Tampa, FL Abstract (excerpts): This presentation will introduce attendees to the paradigm shift underway in the field of information literacy and serve as a model for collaboration between rhetoric & composition instructors and information literacy librarians. The presentation will be a “talk about the talk” instructors in these two disciplines can have in order to collaborate to design and deliver literacy instruction in and for the participatory information environments of the 21st century. . . . We co-presenters—an information literacy librarian and a rhetoric & composition professor—offer as a model for collaboration and metaliteracy instruction the conversations and processes through which our own collaboration developed and thrived. We co-design and co-teach a course called Rhetoric & Social Media into which information literacy, rhetorical theory, writing instruction, and metaliteracy are explicitly integrated. Our collaboration—both in its content and its form—has situated us on the front lines of literacy education and (inter)disciplinary identity on our campus, in and across our respective disciplines, and in higher education as a whole. We are engaged in teaching and research that focuses on analyzing students’ literacy practices, behaviors, dispositions, & abilities in the realm of social media and the effects of engagement in these participatory information environments on literacy and instruction; we are collaborating on first-year writing program development & assessment and sharing student learning outcomes across programs; and we are participating in curricular revision & assessment across campus and positioning literacy instruction in the center of our general education program. In short, it’s been an invigorating five years for us, though at times we have felt a little “mad” in introducing this metadiscourse into these crucible-like contexts. The presentation title, “We’re all mad here,” playfully hints at some of the risks involved in entering this type of collaboration, in engaging in metadiscourse, and in studying and teaching metaliteracy. The “risk” theme of the conference will be addressed on three levels—the disciplinary, the institutional, and the classroom—by engaging the following questions: What does it look like to model this metadiscourse for students, in a course design and in co-teaching? What are the consequences? What does it look like to have this metadiscourse on campus, in program and curricular design, especially with colleagues who resist interdisciplinarity? What are the consequences? What does it look like to have this metadiscourse in our disciplines, with our colleagues, in our research, in defining ourselves for public and educational audiences? What are the consequences?

1. Fostering Metadiscourse
on Metaliteracy
Teresa Grettano
Assistant Professor
Director of FYW
Dept. of English & Theatre
The University of Scranton
@tgrett
teresa.grettano@scranton.edu
Donna Witek
Associate Professor
IL Instruction Librarian
Weinberg Memorial Library
The University of Scranton
@donnarosemary
donna.witek@scranton.edu

3. “old” paradigm
à normal science
à anomalies
à crisis
--SHIFT--
à articulation
à acceptance
à application
“new” paradigm
Paradigm Shift
Kuhn Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962)
Hairston “The Winds of Change” (1982)
#4C15 #H20 #ILmetadisc

4. • Adopted in 2000
• “Information literacy is a set of
abilities requiring individuals to
‘recognize when information is
needed and have the ability to
locate, evaluate, and use effectively
the needed information.’”
• Competency-based education
• Finalized and accepted in 2015
• “Information literacy is the set of
integrated abilities encompassing
the reflective discovery of
information, the understanding of
how information is produced and
valued, and the use of information
in creating new knowledge and
participating ethically in
communities of learning.”
• Threshold Concepts/
Understanding By Design and
Metaliteracy…
ACRL IL Standards ACRL Framework for IL
Paradigm Shift
#4C15 #H20 #ILmetadisc

5. “Metaliteracy Model” [in Wonderland] from
Mackey & Jacobson Metaliteracy, Ch. 1, Figure 1
Paradigm Shift
Mackey &
Jacobson (2011)
Witek &
Grettano (2012)
Mackey &
Jacobson (2014)
Witek &
Grettano (2014)
#4C15 #H20 #ILmetadisc

6. • 5 Standards, each with Performance
Indicators and Outcomes
• Standards focus on determining
an information need, and
accessing, evaluating, and using
information ethically to meet that
need.
• IL learning outcomes are
standardized and universal.
• 6 Frames, each with a proposed
Threshold Concept for IL, Knowledge
Practices, and Dispositions
• Frames focus on the constructed and
contextual nature of authority,
information creation as a process, the
differing types of value placed on
information, research as inquiry,
scholarship as conversation, and
searching as strategic exploration.
• IL learning outcomes are locally
developed, situated, and contextualized.
ACRL IL Standards ACRL Framework for IL
Paradigm Shift
#4C15 #H20 #ILmetadisc

7. #acrlilrevisions Task Force Website chronicling IL Standards Revision Process
http://acrl.ala.org/ilstandards/
Paradigm Shift
#4C15 #H20 #ILmetadisc

8. February!
2015!

9. WPA OS & ACRL Standards
Collaboration
Mazziotti & Grettano “Hanging Together” (2011)
#4C15 #H20 #ILmetadisc

10. FYW Review & Revision
Collaboration
Conventions
of
Format
Voice
Integrate
Flexible
Strategies
Focus
on
a
purpose
Documenting
Multiple
Drafts
Digital
Information
Literacy
Writing
for
Inquiry
Information
Literacy
Mean
rating
for
importance
of
outcome
(Top
10)
• 2013: 3-yr review & revision plan
• WPA OS instructor survey: 5/10
outcomes ranked highest in
importance refer to shared
research outcomes
• Invite librarians to join FYW
Committee
• Invite librarians to score
assessment of final papers
#4C15 #H20 #ILmetadisc

11. ACRL Framework for IL Rhetoric & Composition
Collaboration
• Authority is constructed &
contextual
• Information creation as a process
• Information has value
• Research as inquiry
• Scholarship as conversation
• Searching as strategic exploration
#4C15 #H20 #ILmetadisc
• Ethos & the politics of power
• Process = format, medium is
message
• Intellectual property and access
issues but also value = power
• Intellectual curiosity &
exploration, also Habits of Mind
• Burke’s Parlor
• Generative process

12. • The rabbit hole is uncanny and
uncomfortable
• Critical pedagogy & vulnerability
• “The Facebook course” mocked
as trivial and a distraction
• Labor practices & compensation
Classroom
Risks
Risks & Rewards
#4C15 #H20 #ILmetadisc

13. Classroom
Rewards
Risks & Rewards
• Model Metaliteracy
• Student engagement because of
our enthusiasm
• Critical engagement with media,
information, language, and
communication
• Shared outcomes met in authentic
ways
• Job-readiness
#4C15 #H20 #ILmetadisc

14. Campus Culture & Curriculum
Risks
Risks & Rewards
• Resistance or rejection
• Untenured faculty &
underrepresented disciplines
• Curriculum review & revision
• “Skills” vs “content” courses
• Eloquentia Perfecta
• Professional education vs the
liberal arts
“Queen of Hearts” by Dominic Murphy
via Alice in Wonderland Art
#4C15 #H20 #ILmetadisc

15. Campus Culture & Curriculum
Rewards
Risks & Rewards
• Tenure!
• Respect as “fighters”
• Committee invitations for legitimacy
• Model for collaboration
• Model for SoTL
• Leadership roles
#4C15 #H20 #ILmetadisc

16. Professional & Disciplinar y
Risks
Risks & Rewards
• Enacting metaliteracy in the IL revision
process: Twitter & blogging
• February 2014: “Metaliteracy and the New
Draft ACRL IL Framework”
• April 2014, July 2014, December 2014: public
& transparent participation in revision process
• January 2015 (on ACRLog): “‘Sunrise, Sunset’:
A Reflection on Assessment and the
Framework for Information Literacy for
Higher Education”
• February 2015: “Making the Framework
Accessible”
Image by Nicoletta Ceccoli via
Marica on MyModernMet.com
#4C15 #H20 #ILmetadisc

17. Professional & Disciplinar y
Rewards
Risks & Rewards
• Achievement Unlocked: Framework for IL
“accepted by the ACRL Board” = supported
with resources!
• Work Still Ahead: Framework for IL co-
existing with IL Standards, eventual sunset of
latter?
• What’s Next: transformed IL pedagogy
• Worth the Risk? Yes: authentic student
learning at stake.
• BONUS: collaboration with Rhet/Comp and
other disciplinary faculty
…this matters.
Image via Alicismo on Tumblr
#4C15 #H20 #ILmetadisc

18. • How can you foster collaboration in
teaching and research between IL &
Rhet/Comp on your campus using
shared language & outcomes?
• What fights are worth fighting on
your campus and how can you build
alliances?
• How can we advocate for and support
each other professionally on campus,
in our disciplines, and in public
discourse?
Action Items
#4C15 #H20 #ILmetadisc

19. References
Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education. Association of College
and Research Libraries, 2015.
Framework for Success in Postsecondary Writing. Council of Writing Program
Administrators, the National Council of Teachers of English, and the National
Writing Project, 2011.
Hairston, Maxine. “The Winds of Change: Thomas Kuhn and the Revolution in the
Teaching of Writing.” CCC 33.1 (1982): 76-88.
Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education. Association of
College & Research Libraries, 2000.
Kuhn, Thomas. Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: The University of
Chicago Press, 1962, 2012.
Mackey, Thomas P., and Trudi E. Jacobson. Metaliteracy: Reinventing Information Literacy
to Empower Learners. Chicago: ALA Neal-Schuman, 2014.
Slide 1/2

20. References
---. “Reframing Information Literacy as a Metaliteracy.” College & Research Libraries
72.1 (2011): 62-78.
Mazziotti, Donna, and Teresa Grettano. “‘Hanging Together’: Collaboration between
Information Literacy and Writing Programs Based on the ACRL Standards and the
WPA Outcomes.” ACRL 2011.
Witek, Donna, and Teresa Grettano. “Information literacy on Facebook: an analysis.”
Reference Services Review 40.2 (2012): 242-57.
---. “Teaching metaliteracy: a new paradigm in action.” Reference Services Review 42.2
(2014): 188-208.
WPA Outcomes Statement for First-Year Composition. Council of Writing Program
Administrators. 2000, 2008, 2014.
Slide 2/2