Do we need a meta-literacy?
I'm experimenting with some video clips. The clip below is a trial - repeat - a trail. Unfortunately the sound is terrible (but I'm not redoing it) and the lights are too bright. But it is heading in the right direction.
I would like to provide a forum for others in the field to have their say on various things. I think it would be cool to have a bunch of these 'idea' clips to stimulate thought and discussion.
1. First of all, great...! I'm right there with you on this. And nice to see the first post on your youtube channel. I think that the assumptions regarding the changing nature of work are correct. This lines up with what others have been saying, like Seth Godin and other thought leaders (generally outside of the education world) for example.
2. Re the problem: I think you're correct about the effects of learner beliefs, especially negative beliefs and the related mitigation strategies. No one has their finger on the pulse of this more than you do. Kudos.
3. Re the solution: meta-literacy and learning how to learn. I agree again. A literacy of learning definitely. I've called this Hacking Learning in the past, but it's a clumsy sounding label and I don't like it.
if I'm going to play the Devil's advocate again, here I my issues:
a. How is this different to what we already know about metacognition, learning to learn, and the non lunatic fringe side of what we used to call Accelerated Learning (i.e. without the Bulgarian pseudoscience)? Perhaps it's the same, but repackaged for the 21st century. If it's different, how?
b. How to package this as an idea for funding? Bridging courses and teaching learning to learn skills courses aren't new. What would be innovative is figuring out how to package these ideas in a way that allows you to sell them to funding agencies so that you could pilot something, and/or deploy on a really big scale.
I think it's hard to sell literacy and numeracy, possibly harder to sell personal development courses that may not deliver the same kinds of instantly recognisable outcomes (e.g. a NZ certificate in something or point directly to a perceived job need).
These ideas need better packaging overall... I agree 100% that literacy and numeracy could be better reformulated, given a dose of steroids and metacognition, and packaged as learning to learn and meta-literacy, but I don't think these are the right labels for wider adoption.
c. To consider: Could this be done by stealth under the guise of something more mundane? E.g. if you already had access to YG funding for something like NZ cert in employment skills could you rewrite all of the assessments and course work so that you could teach meta-literacy including problem solving creativity, innovation, ideation, small business management, nutrition, fitness, coding, and principles of entrepreneurship? I think you could. But it would be a lot of work. And you'd have to still meet the normal outcomes of the funding and other compliance. Haters gonna hate and still want to see credits and qualifications and gains in other areas. I don't see a way around this unless there was a massive shift in terms of how WINZ and others control the destinies of the target age group.
d. The clientele: How do you deal with the fact that you would still be dealing with the same learners (drug and alcohol issues, behaviour problems, connections to low level criminal activity, poor health and diet, low motivation, bad attitude). Is the assumption that the change of focus to meta-literacy would help mitigate these issues? Or would dealing with them be part of the course?
e. How do you scale? Assuming that you proved that this approach had better outcomes (however measured) than the present one, how do you scale it? This is a bigger problem than this issue too. It's really hard to scale great teachers. Perhaps you can't. Professional development has the same problem.