Presentation on 24 November, 2014 at the "Critical literacies in higher education" seminar at the University of the Western Cape, South Africa

1. Metaliteracy, networks
and agency: an
exploration
By Paul Prinsloo
Critical literacies in higher education
Presentation at the University of the Western Cape (UWC),
Monday 24 November 2014

2. I do not own the copyright of any of the images in this
presentation. I hereby acknowledge the original copyright and
licensing regime of every image and reference I’ve used.
Images used in this presentation have been sourced from
Google labeled for non-commercial reuse, or from Flickr
published under a CC license. Where no ownership or license
could be established, I indicated the hyperlink address.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-
NonCommercial 4.0 International License

3. Overview of the presentation
1.Contextualising literacy: searching for a
center that holds
2.Making sense of the 21st century:
literacy/agency/choice
3.Disclaimer/Acknowledgement
4.Mapping literacies/capabilities
5.Mapping some approaches to agency
6.Being agentic – a proposal

4. The range of individual autonomy is expanding,
increasingly being “burdened with the
functions that were once viewed as the
responsibility of the state” (Bauman, 2011, p.
16). Individuals are increasingly faced to
respond to socially produced problems.
At no other time has the necessity to make
choices been so deeply felt and has choosing
become so poignantly self-conscious, conducted
under conditions of painful yet incurable
uncertainty, of a constant threat of ‘being left
behind’ and of being excluded from the game,
with return barred for failure to live up to the
new demands” (Bauman, 2012, p. 21)

5. Searching for a centre that holds
http://iderelelibrary.weebly.com/the-true-story-of-the-3-little-pigs.html
“…we no longer possess a
home; we are repeatedly
called upon to build and then
rebuild one, like the three
little pigs of the fairy tale, or
we have to carry it along with
us on our backs like snails”
(Melucci in Bauman, 2012, p.
22)

6. Searching for a centre that holds
• Not only have our maps of sense-making from the past been
proven to be fragile, but also proven to be the illegitimate
offspring of unsavory liaisons between ideology, context, and
humanity’s gullibility in believing in promises of unconstrained
scientific progress.
• A “crisis of proposals and a crisis of utopias” (Max-Neef, 1991)
• In a time “when the old is dying and the new cannot be born”
(Gramsci, 1971, p. 110)
How do we make sense of our choices, realise the potential of
the choices we have, live with the reality of the choices we don’t
have and increasing the choices others have in order to live
dignified lives?

7. Making sense of the 21st century
Our understanding of the definition, scope and
function of literacies/capabilities/agency is influenced
by our understanding of the major discourses of the
current (and future) age and our and contextual
sociomaterial positionalities

8. A new dark age?
“A global cocktail of intolerable poverty and
outrageous wealth, starvation, mass terrorism
with nuclear/biological weapons, world war,
deliberate pandemics and religious insanity,
might plunge humanity into a worldwide pattern
of unending hatred and violence – a new Dark
Age” (Martin, 2007, p. 32)
How does such an understanding of the current age
shape our view of the scope, definition and function
of literacy/capability/voice?

9. A new age of scientific enlightenment?
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Rosetta_and_Phil
ae_at_comet_(11206755953).jpg

10. Disclaimer/Acknowledgement
• My thoughts and work are deeply influenced by the work of
Zygmunt Bauman – who has been called the “sociologist of
misery” (Dawson, 2012, p. 555)
• Bauman has been accused of not offering ‘easy’ alternatives
• On the other hand, Bauman brought considering inequality
and suffering back into the picture like no one else
• Bauman’s belief in a utopia “operates less as a view of a
possible world, but rather as a device for critiquing the world:
the utopia remains ‘in the realm of the possible’” (Bauman,
1976, in Dawson, 2012, p. 560)
• Bauman’s belief in agency is the belief in individuals ability to
say ‘no’ (Dawson, 2012)

11. Meta/ discourse literacy
Rampant consumerism and
rapacious capitalism
“From cradle to coffin we are
trained and drilled to treat shops
as pharmacies filled with drugs
to cure or at least mitigate all the
illnesses and afflictions in our
lives…” (Bauman, 2012, p. 89)
• The myth of economic growth
• Downward mobility
Local and global
(dis)connections &
contestations
Finding local answers to
globally produced problems?
(Bauman, 1998; Bauman, 2012;
Castells, 2009)
A networked age
Not everyone is included, but
everyone is affected… “Networks
are created not just to
communicate, but also to gain
position, to outcommunicate”
(Geoff Mulgan in Castells, 2009, p. 26)
Personal privacy and state
security
• Collection and use of personal data
• Crusades, jihads and the clash of
fundamentalisms
• “Ubiquitous mixophobia”
(Bauman, 2012, p. 63) – growth of
interdictory spaces & gated
communities (Bauman, 2012, p. 68)
Meta/ discourse literacy

12. Understanding literacy as agency
http://pixabay.com/en/fist-red- https://flic.kr/p/5VkJfU
communism-fight-161911/ https://flic.kr/p/6D6g18

13. Capabilities
Literacies
Knowledge
Resources
Tools
Capital
A proposal: Being agentic
Choices
Being agentic as an embodied,
entangled, relational, networked,
mediated and mediating context-specific
capability and choice

14. Different literacies/outcomes/attributes
Information literacy
Digital literacy
Media literacy
Five minds of the future
Cyber
literacy
Information
fluency
Multiple intelligences
Metaliteracy
Fluencies for a global
digital citizen
Competencies for media and digital
literacy

15. Making sense of literacy/capability
http://danihee.deviantart.com/art/Dog-with-glasses-307795151

16. A personal understanding: Literacies, agency,
well-being – Amartya Sen (1999) (1)
Functionings:
Things over which
I have command –
literacies, skills,
shaped by choice,
habitus, context,
need
Capabilities:
A selection of
functionalities
in a particular
context, need
Well-being:
Being able to
make choices
(in recognition
that choices
are constrained
by others,
values and
context)
Critical agency:
The freedom to
act but also the
freedom to
question and
reassess

17. Making sense of literacy/capability (2)
Three approaches to the question: What type of education will help
about a better society or a better world? (Walker, 2012) – human capital,
human rights, human capabilities (Robeyns, 2006)
Human capital & the logic of
productivity
• Privileging economic growth
• Educated, skilled workers are more
productive in generating wealth
• The brightest and the best will rise to
the top
• Economic development prioritised
over social inclusion
• Education is not a public good, is
apolitical and is an adjunct to the
market
• Increasing gap between
economic growth and human
well-being
• Increasing inequalities
• Continued exploitation of
nature and populations for
economic growth

18. Making sense of literacy/capability (3)
Human capabilities and a logic of freedom & sustainable human
development
• What do human beings require for a flourishing life?
• Which capabilities will enable us “to choose and to live in ways we
find meaningful, productive and rewarding individually and
collectively to the good of society”? (Walker, 2012, p. 388)
• …well-being is not measured by wealth or functioning, but by
capability – “the capacity of a person to choose to do one thing and
not another… But so long as choice was confined to selection
between options determined by others – so long a person’s capability
set was determined by social arrangements in which one had no say –
then there is no freedom” (Blunden, 2004, par. 22 - referring to the
work of Amartya Sen)

19. Comparison of capital and capabilities
“narratives” (adapted from Walker, 2012, p. 391)
On being human Values in policy
design
Pedagogies Desirable outcomes
Human capital • Individuals =
economic
producers/consum
ers
• Rational
• Human differences
are not
acknowledged
• Economic growth
• Employability
• Competitive, free
markets
• Training focused
• Adaptive and
reproductive
• Banking education
• Individualised
• Fit
• Skills, knowledge
& competencies
• Transferable skills
• Lifelong learning
• Market
meritocracy
Human capabilities • Full human
flourishing,
dignity, well-being
& agency
• Participant
• Human diversity
valued
• Education is a
cultural
experience
• Develop human
capital but
capabilities are
the overarching
value
• Transformative,
dialogic,
participatory
• Inclusive
• Critical
• Voice
• Capabilities
• Rich agency and
voice
• Social justice
• Human rights

20. A personal understanding: Literacies…
Functionings:
Things over which I
have command –
literacies, skills,
shaped by choice,
habitus, context,
need
Capabilities:
A selection of
functionalities in
a particular
context, need
Well-being:
Being able to
make choices (in
recognition that
choices are
constrained by
others, values
and context)
Critical agency:
The freedom to
act but also the
freedom to
question and
reassess

21. Metaliteracy (Mackey & Jacobson, 2011)
Image retrieved from retrieved from http://metaliteracy.cdlprojects.com/what.htm
Understand format
type and delivery
mode
Evaluate user
feedback as active
researcher
Create a context
for user-generated
information
Evaluate dynamic
content critically
Produce original
content in multiple
media formats
Understand
personal privacy,
information ethics
and intellectual
property issues
Share information in
participatory
environments Mackey, T.P., & Jacobson, T.E. (2011). Reframing
information literacy as metaliteracy. College &
Research Libraries, 72(1), 62-78.

22. From the solid to the liquid: New literacies for the cultural
changes of Web 2.0
Web 2.0 is a huge information
warehouse
THE UNIVERSAL LIBRARY
Web 2.0 is a jigsaw puzzle of
fragmented interconnected
pieces
THE HYPERTEXTUAL
CONNECTION
Web 2.0 is a vast souk or
market of digital services and
products
THE GLOBAL MARKET
Web 2.0 is a stage for
multimodal expression
MULTIMEDIA & AUDIOVISUAL
COMMUNICATION
Web 2.0 is a public space or
assembly of human interaction
SOCIAL NETWORKS
Web 2.0 is an artificial
ecosystem for human
experience
VIRTUAL INTERACTIVE
ENVIRONMENTS
WEB 2.0
Area, M., & Pessoa, T. (2012). From the solid to the liquid: New literacies for the cultural changes of Web 2.0. Communicar. Scientific
Journal of Media Communication. DOI: 10.3916/C38-2011-02-01. http://www.revistacomunicar.com/pdf/preprint/38/En-01-PRE-
12378.pdf

23. Liquid metaliteracy (Area & Pessoa, 2012; Mackey &
Jacobson, 2011)
Mackey & Jacobson (2011) Area & Pessoa (2012)
Understand format type and delivery mode Instrumental competence: “technical control over
each technology and its logical use procedures”
Evaluate user feedback as active researcher Cognitive-intellectual competence: “the
acquisition of specific cognitive knowledge and
skills that enable the subject to search for, select,
analyze, interpret and recreate the vast amount of
information to which he (sic) has access [to]…”
Create a context for user-generated information
Evaluate dynamic content critically Socio-communicative competence: “the
development of a set of skills related to the
creation of various text types… and their
dissemination in different languages”
Produce original content in multiple media
formats
Understand personal privacy, information ethics
and intellectual property issues
Axiological competence: “referring to the
awareness that ICT are not aseptic or neutral from
the social viewpoint but exert a significant
influence on the cultural and political
environment of our society…”
Share information in participatory environments

24. Critical consciousness as the foundation for metaliteracy
“The act of learning to read and write start from a very
comprehensive understanding of the act of reading the world,
something which humans do before reading the words” (Freire, 1989,
p. xvii; emphasis added)
“To be illiterate, for Freire, was not only the lack of skills of reading or
writing; it was to feel powerless and dependent in a much more
general way …” (Burbules & Berk, 1999, p. 52)
In order to read the world, I therefore need to be able to map
who/what shapes/shaped my world, the reasons for it, how the
shape influences where I am and the choices I have, what the rules
of my world are and who benefits from those rules (and my
adherence) and how to disrupt and formulate alternative
narratives, for myself and for others.

25. Critical consciousness as the foundation for metaliteracy as
agency
Understand format type and
delivery mode
Evaluate user feedback as
active researcher
Create a context for user-generated
information
Evaluate dynamic content
critically
Produce original content in
multiple media formats
Understand personal
privacy, information ethics
and intellectual property
issues
Share information in
participatory environments
METALITERACYMETALITERACY

26. Different theoretical approaches to
agency/literacy
• Social cognitive theory (Bandura, 2006)
• Human capability approach (Sen, Nussbaum,
Walker)
• Critical & transformative (Freire)
• Actor-network theory (Latour, Fenwick & Edwards)
• Field theory (Bourdieu)

27. Social cognitive theory (Bandura, 2006)
Rejects the duality between human agency and social
structure:
“People do not operate as autonomous agents. Nor is their
behaviour wholly determined by situational influences. Rather,
human functioning is a product of a reciprocal interplay of
intrapersonal, behavioural, and environmental determinants..
This triadic interaction includes the exercise of self-influence as
part of the causal structure” (p. 165).

28. Social cognitive theory (Bandura, 2006)(2)
Three modes of agency namely individual, proxy and
collective. These three modes do not function separately or
independently, but “everyday functioning requires an agentic
blend of these three forms of agency” (p. 165).
Proxy agency as being required when “people do not have
direct control over conditions that affect their lives… They do
so by influencing others who have the resources, knowledge,
and means to act on their behalf to secure the outcomes they
desire” (p. 165; emphasis added).

29. Social cognitive theory (Bandura, 2006)(3)
“Given that individuals are producers as well as products of
their life circumstances, they are partial authors of the past
conditions that developed them, as well as the future courses
their lives take” (p. 165).
Agentic management of fortuity - “People are often
inaugurated into new life trajectories, marriages, and careers
through fortuitous circumstances” (p. 166).
“They can make chance happen by pursuing an active life that
increases the number and type of fortuitous encounters they
will experience” (p. 166).

30. Critique & agency – a sociomaterialist
intervention (Edwards & Fenwick, 2014;
Fenwick & Edwards, 2014)
Networks as sociomaterial assemblages that are “continually
making and unmaking themselves” through and by
entanglement with social and material aspects (Fenwick &
Edwards, 2014, p. 38).
“Knowing is not separate from doing but emerges from the
very matter-ings in which we engage” ( Fenwick & Edwards,
2014, p. 43)

31. Critique & agency – a sociomaterialist
intervention (Edwards & Fenwick, 2014;
Fenwick & Edwards, 2014)(2)
“Perhaps education could focus less on subject-centering and
more on destabilising and decentering the certainties that have
accumulated to authorise particular subjects in particular
historical and regional contexts” (Fenwick & Edwards, 2014, p.
47).
Moving “from a rhetoric of conclusions towards a rhetoric of
contentions” (Fenwick & Edwards, 2014, p. 48; emphasis added)

32. Critique & agency - (Edwards & Fenwick, 2014;
Fenwick & Edwards, 2014)(3)
“Critique, in other words, has all the limits of utopia: it relies on the
certainty of the world beyond this world” (Latour, 2010, in Edwards &
Fenwick, 2014, p. 6)
“The critic is not the one who debunks, but the one who assembles.
The critic is not the one who lifts the rugs from under the feet of the
naïve believers, but the one who offers the participants arenas in
which to gather” (Latour, 2004, in Edwards & Fenwick, 2014, p. 9).
Critical agency therefore entails “keeping open the controversies or
at least slow down the process of resolving controversies about that
of which the world is made” (Edwards & Fenwick, 2014, p. 9)

33. In order to be literate/ a player in the 21st century I
need to understand the field, the game, and my
position, and my skills
Image retrieved from http://www.allstaractivities.com/images/soccer-positions.gif
• Boundaried site
• Players have set/
predetermined
positions
• Rules are
predetermined
• Players have different
skills
• What players can do is
determined by their
position on the field
• The physical condition
of the field impacts play

34. In order to be literate in a networked and (un)flat world
Image retrieved from http://envirolaw.com/wp-content/
uploads/black-student.jpg
CAPITAL:
What type of “capital” I
have or don’t have
• Economic
• Cultural
• Social
• Symbolic
HABITUS: Who and how
my past shaped/shapes
me:
• Genetic makeup
• Gender/ Race
• Socio-economic circumstances
• Parental background
• Geopolitical location
• Educational experiences
• Health
• The choices I made in the
past…
• My dispositions
• Etc.
These are durable and
transposable (Maton, 2012)
I need to know…
THE FIELD:
How does the field in which I
find myself in, shape me?
What/who shapes the field?
Who are the (other) players
in the field:
• Who are they?
• How come they are
shapers?
• What are the rules?
• Who are the referees?

35. Looking at metaliteracy from a field theory (Bourdieu)
perspective
The “field” is not a benign, pastoral space, but rather le champ – a battle field,
where players have set positions, predetermined paces, specific rules which
novice players must learn together with basic skills.
“What players can do, and where they can go during the game, depends on their
field position. The actual physical condition of the field (whether it is wet, dry,
well grassed or full of potholes), also has an effect on what players can do and this
how the game is played” (Thompson, 2012, p. 66).
[(habitus)(capital)] + field = practice/agency
(Maton, 2012, p. 50)

36. A field theory perspective on agency
My dispositions - how
my past and present (and
my understanding
thereof) shaped and still
shape me
The capital that I have
acquired in the process
(or not)
The field – the
context in which I
find myself in. This
is not a neutral
space, but is, itself,
shaped by various
structures, and
agencies of
individuals and
collectives
My practice/agency and my
understanding thereof…
We are not “pre-programmed automatons acting out the
implications of our upbringings” (Maton, 2012, p. 50).

37. Being literate in a networked and (un)flat world it is
important to know…
“…where we are in life in any one moment [is]… the result of numberless events
in the past that shaped our path” (Maton, 2012, p. 51).
Literacy and agency is understanding that the choices we have in any particular
moment and time in a specific context, are shaped by the positions we have in
that particular social field at that moment in time.
Complicating matters is the fact that the context we find ourselves in (at that
particular moment in time), has itself been shaped by and is shaped by other
contexts, individuals in an evolving power play.

38. HABITUS
FIELD
CAPITAL
Image retrieved from
http://metaliteracy.cdlprojects
.com/what.htm

39. Being agentic as an embodied, entangled,
relational, networked, mediated and mediating
context-specific capability and choice
Functionings:
Things over which
I have command –
literacies, skills,
shaped by choice,
habitus, context,
need
Capabilities:
A selection of
functionalities
in a particular
context, need
Well-being:
Being able to
make choices
(in recognition
that choices
are constrained
by others,
values and
context)
Critical agency:
The freedom to
act but also the
freedom to
question and
reassess

40. (In)conclusions
1. Being agentic is an embodied, entangled, relational,
networked, mediated and mediating context-specific
capability and choice
2. We should consider our understanding and definitions of
literacy as being fragile, tentative, and until-further-notice-constructs
3. Literacies should open up spaces for being capable and
being agentic
4. We should keep the controversies open and slow down the
discourses around literacy/structure/agency
5. Pedagogies of hope means embracing the ability to say ‘no’,
to transgress, to voice

41. Paul Prinsloo
Research Professor in Open Distance Learning (ODL)
College of Economic and Management Sciences
TVW 4-69/ 3-15, Club 1, Hazelwood
P O Box 392
Unisa, 0003, Republic of South Africa
+27 (0) 12 429 3683 or +27 (0) 12 433 4600 (office)
+27 (0) 12 429 3551 (fax)
+27 (0) 82 3954 113 (mobile)
Skype: paul.prinsloo59
Personal blog: http://opendistanceteachingandlearning.wordpress.com
Twitter profile: @14prinsp
41

42. References and additional reading
Ahmadpour, K. (2014). Developing a framework for understanding information literacy
in the 21st century: a review of literature. A thesis submitted in conformity with
the requirements for the Degree of Master of Education Graduate Department
of Education in the University of Ontario Institute of Technology. Retrieved from
http://faculty.uoit.ca/kay/files/capstones/Ahmadpour_%202014_FrameworkInf
ormationLiteracy_Final.pdf
Apple, M.W. (Ed.). (2010). Global crises, social justice, and education. New York, NY:
Routledge.
Archer, M.S. (2003). Structure, agency and the internal conversation. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Area, M., & Pessoa, T. (2012). From the solid to the liquid: New literacies for the cultural
changes of Web 2.0. Communicar. Scientific Journal of Media Communication.
DOI: 10.3916/C38-2011-02-01.
http://www.revistacomunicar.com/pdf/preprint/38/En-01-PRE-12378.pdf
Arinto, P.B. (2013). A framework for developing competencies in open and distance
learning. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 14(1):
167-185.

43. Area, M., & Pessoa, T. (2012). From the solid to the liquid: New literacies for the cultural
changes of Web 2.0. Communicar. Scientific Journal of Media Communication. DOI:
10.3916/C38-2011-02-01. http://www.revistacomunicar.com/pdf/preprint/38/En-
01-PRE-12378.pdf
Bandura, A. (2006). Toward a psychology of human agency. Perspectives on Psychological
Science, 1: 164-180. DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-6916.2006.00011.x
Barnett, R. (2004). Learning for an unknown future, Higher Education Research &
Development, 23(3): 247-260, DOI: 10.1080/0729436042000235382
Barnett, R. (2009). Knowing and becoming in the higher education curriculum, Studies in
Higher Education, 34(4): 429-440, DOI: 10.1080/03075070902771978
Bauman, Z. (1995). Searching for a centre that holds, in M. Featherstone, S. Lash, & R.
Robertson (eds.) Global modernities, (pp. 140-154). London, UK: Sage.
Bauman, Z. (1998). Globalization. The human consequences. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
Bauman, Z. (2004). Wasted lives. Modernity and its outcasts. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
Bauman, Z. (2008). The art of life. Cambridge: polity.
Bauman, Z. (2011). Collateral damage. Social inequalities in a global age. Cambridge, UK:
Polity Press
Bauman, Z. (2012). On education. Conversations with Riccardo Mazzeo. Cambridge, UK:
Polity Press

44. Blackmore, J. (2001). Universities in crisis? Knowledge economies, emancipatory
pedagogies, and the critical intellectual. Educational Theory, 51(3): 353 — 370.
Blunden, A. (2004). Amartya Sen on well-being and critical voice. Retrieved from
http:home.mira.net/~andy/works/sen-critical-voice.htm
Burbules, N.C. & Berk, R. (1999). Critical thinking and critical pedagogy: relations,
differences and limits, in Critical theories in education: changing the terrains of
knowledge and politics, edited by T.S. Popkewitz & L. Fendler. New York:
Routledge, pp. 45—66.
Castells, M. (2009). Communication power. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Coetzee, M., Botha, J-A, Eccles, N., Holtzhausen, N., & Nienaber, H. (2012). Developing
graduateness & employability. Issues, provocations, theory and practical
guidelines. Randburg: Knowres Publishing Ltd
Dawson, M. (2012). Optimism and agency in the sociology of Zygmunt Bauman.
European Journal of Social Theory, 15(4): 555-570.
Emirbayer, M., & Mische, A. (1998). What Is Agency? American Journal of Sociology,
103(4): 962-1023.
Fenwick, T., & Edwards, R. (2010). Actor-network theory in education. London, UK:
Routledge.
Fenwick, T., & Edwards, R. (2014). Networks of knowledge, matters of learning, and
criticality in higher education. Higher Education, 67: 35-50.

45. Fountain, R-M. (1999). Socio-scientific issues via actor network theory, Journal of
Curriculum Studies, 31(3): 339-358. DOI:10.1080/002202799183160
Freire, P. (1973). Pedagogy of the oppressed. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Freire, P. (1989). Learning to question: a pedagogy of liberation. New York: Continuum.
Gardner, H. (2008). Five minds for the future. Boston, MA: Harvard University Press.
Gardner, H. (2011). Frames of mind. The theory of multiple intelligences. New York, NY:
Basic Books.
Ghemawat, P. (2011). World 3.0. Global prosperity and how to achieve it. Boston:
Harvard Business School Publishing.
Gramsci, A. (1971). Selections from the Prison Notebooks of Antonio Gramsci. Edited by
Q. Hoare and G. N. Smith. New York, NY: International Publishers.
Gray, J. (2004). Heresies. Against progress and other illusions. London, UK: Granta
Books.
Gray, J. (2014, October 21). The truth about evil. [Web log post]. Retrieved from
http://www.theguardian.com/news/2014/oct/21/-sp-the-truth-about-evil-john-gray
Grenfell, M. (ed.). 2012. Pierre Bourdieu. Key concepts. (Second edition). Durham, UK:
Acumen.

46. Kiffer, S., & Tchibozo, G. (2013). Developing the teaching competencies of novice
faculty members: a review of international literature. Policy Futures in
Education, 11(3): 277-289.
Kreber, C. (2014). Rationalising the nature of ‘graduateness’ through philosophical
accounts of authenticity, Teaching in Higher Education, 19(1): 90-100. DOI:
10.1080/13562517.2013.860114
Mackey, T. P., & Jacobson, T. E. (2010). Reframing information literacy as a
metaliteracy. College & Research Libraries, crl-76r1.
Mackey, T. P., & Jacobson, T. E. (2014). Metaliteracy: advancing learning after literacy.
Enhancing the Practice of Learning and Teaching, 5(1), p. 3. Retrieved from
http://www.okanagan.bc.ca/Assets/Departments%20%28Administration%29/I
LT/ILT%20Newsletter%20%285$!2c1%29.pdf#page=3
Martin, J. (2007). The meaning of the 21st century. A vital blueprint for ensuring the
future. London, UK: Transworld Publishers.
Maton, K. (2012). Habitus. In Michael Grenfell (Ed.), Pierre Bourdieu. Key concepts.
Durham, UK : Acumen Publishing, pp. 48—64.
Max-Neef, M. (1991). Human scale development. Conception, application and further
reflections. New York, NY: The Apex Press.
Mayer-Schönberger, V. (2009). Delete. The virtue of forgetting in the digital age.
Princeton: Princeton University Press.

47. Piketty, T. (2014). Capital I the twenty-first century. (Translated by Arthur Goldhammer).
Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Prinsloo, P. (2012). Graduateness as counter-narrative: gazing back at Medusa. In M.
Coetzee, J-A. Botha, N. Eccles, N. Holtzhausen & H. Nienaber, Developing
graduateness & employability. Issues, provocations, theory and practical
guidelines (pp. 89-102). Randburg: Knowres Publishing Ltd
Prinsloo, P. (2013). Metaliteracy in beta: a personal view from the South. Presentation
in the SUNY Metaliteracy MOOC. Retrieved from
http://www.slideshare.net/prinsp/p-prinsloo-7-october2013-final
Robeyns, I. (2006). Three models of education: rights, capabilities and human capital.
Theory in Research in Education, 4: 69-84. DOI: 10.1177/1477878506060683
Sen, A. (1999). Development as freedom. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Sharkey, T. (2013). Establishing twenty-first-century information fluency. Reference &
User Services Quarterly 53 (1): 33–39. doi:10.5860/rusq.53n1.33.
Shilling, C. (1999). Towards an embodied understanding of the structure/agency
relationship. British Journal of Sociology, 50(4): 543-562.
Standing, G. (2011). The precariat. The new dangerous class. London, UK: Bloomsbury.
Thompson, P. (2012). Field. In Michael Grenfell (Ed.), Pierre Bourdieu. Key concepts.
Durham, UK : Acumen Publishing, pp. 65—82.

48. Walker, M. (2003). Framing social justice in education: what does the ‘capabilities’
approach offer? British Journal of Educational Studies, 51(2): 168-187. DOI:
10.1111/1467-8527.t01-2-00232
Walker, M. (2012). A capital or capabilities education narrative in a world of staggering
inequalities. International Journal of Educational Development, 32: 384-393.
Watters, A. (2012). Unbundling and unmooring: technology and the higher ed tsunami.
EDUCAUSEreview, [online]. Retrieved from
http://www.educause.edu/ero/article/unbundling-and-unmooring-technology-and-
higher-ed-tsunami
Webb, D. (2013). Pedagogies of hope. Studies in the Philosophy and Education, 32: 397-
41. DOI: 10.1007/s11217-012-9336-1
Wexelbaum, R., & Miltenoff, P. (2014). College students, social media, and metaliteracy.
Paper delivered at the Library Technology Conference, St Cloud State
University, St Cloud, Minnesota. Retrieved from
http://digitalcommons.macalester.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1419&cont
ext=libtech_conf
White, J. (2005). Howard Gardner: the myth of multiple intelligences. Retrieved from
http://eprints.ioe.ac.uk/1263/1/WhiteJ2005HowardGardner1.pdf