How I Found Metaliteracy

by Misha Robinson

My journey to metaliteracy has not been expected or exactly straightforward; I am an adjunct lecturer at a community college in Maryland and started out as a fierce advocate of media literacy and critical consumption in the age of social media. It was at the Maryland Consortium for Adjunct Faculty Professional Development in 2024 that I ran into the idea—and the woman—who lit the spark. Dr. Rhianna Rodgers was the keynote speaker that day, and she had a great deal to say about AI and its potential applications for the classroom. I was something of an AI skeptic—not closed, but definitely wary. At the Q&A, I asked her how I could integrate AI into the media literacy that I was teaching—less ‘how to use AI’ and more ‘how to identify AI-generated content’ and ‘how to defend yourself against doctored reality.’ Her response was immediate—she put me in touch with a colleague, Dr. Thomas Mackey, and told me to ask him about metaliteracy. She explained that metaliteracy asks learners to consume more critically but also to reflect on what they consume and to use that knowledge to make something new. I reached out and Dr. Mackey and I connected, and I have never looked back.

This summer, I learned that Dr. Mackey was giving a presentation with some colleagues about Metaliteracy and AI up at SUNY Stony Brook, so I figured what the heck, and I went up to attend the conference for a day. I came away practically vibrating with ideas and enthusiasm, and with a burning need to share metaliteracy with other faculty, not just with my students. There is so much that metaliterate class construction can do to facilitate deep learning, and metaliterate learning elegantly addresses student use of AI, which seems to be the digital elephant in the room these days.

Bringing Metaliteracy to Fellow Faculty

So, there I was: an adjunct instructor at the front of a room filled with part-time, full-time, and tenured faculty, thinking that I had something ground-breaking to share. To say that I was nervous would be an understatement. However, I have often referred to myself, somewhat jokingly, as a shameless evangelist for metaliteracy, and now I had my chance!

First, I wanted to illustrate the benefits to students of teaching from a metaliteracy framework—namely, that students become more reflective and engaged learners. They work in collaboration with others to synthesize and produce new knowledge and contribute that knowledge responsibly as civically minded people engaged in building the world they want to live in. Second, I had taken great pains to construct my presentation as one that was discipline-agnostic; I had no idea who would be in the room, either in terms of their department or discipline or how they might feel about integrating technology such as AI or podcasts into their classes. It was critical that the presentation feel relevant to everyone so that no one felt it was a waste of time or a poor fit. As it turns out, I had a handful of librarians and faculty from the departments of English, accelerated learning, math, philosophy, and academic development, among others. I seized the opportunity given to show everyone that metaliteracy unites strands of thought and learning from across disciplines.

One of the early slides in the presentation by the author that provides examples of how students can use interdisciplinary approaches to enrich and enhance understanding of the world around us.
Figure 1: This is one of the early slides in the presentation, giving examples of how students can use interdisciplinary approaches to enrich and enhance understanding of the world around us.

I took the opportunity to explain how metaliteracy benefits their students by better preparing them for a world that is inundated with information and leaves them on their own to sort it out. I showed them what metaliteracy could do for their students—like history students analyzing historical misinformation about pandemics like the 1918 Influenza, building digital exhibits using primary sources, then collaborating with health science students on how to improve public health communication for future pandemics. Then, I showed my colleagues how to do it themselves: I provided basic guidelines for how to build metaliteracy into classroom assignments, from lab reports to literature reviews, using verbs like Find, Synthesize, and Reflect that map onto Bloom’s Taxonomy to keep it familiar.

A slide from the author's presentation on how to integrate metaliteracy goals into assignment types that educators already use.
Figure 1: A slide from my presentation on how to integrate metaliteracy goals into assignment types that educators already use.

Okay, But… Why Metaliteracy?

Metaliteracy requires you to take the knowledge you have found and evaluated and do something with it. Share it, remix it, collaborate with others and turn it into something new. It is not enough to have the information; use it to the benefit of your fellow humans. It feels naïve to say this, but I see the benefits of metaliteracy so clearly that it honestly never occurred to me that others might not. So, I was surprised when one of the participants challenged me to really differentiate metaliteracy from information literacy. The answer was, to me, so simple that I struggled for several minutes to articulate it. However, this was the moment when I found that my presentation truly landed with some of the faculty, as one of them turned around to the questioner and gave his version of what the difference between them was—he homed in on the metacognitive domain and suggested that was where the difference lies.

Advice for Presenters

For those who have read the articles, or the books, or have read this website from start to finish, and are thinking about bringing metaliteracy to their institutions, I offer the following advice: first, keep it broad and interdisciplinary. On the first slide after my title, I offered a reassurance that if you’re not sure where or whether metaliteracy fits your discipline, there would be examples from many fields of academia. Building a coalition of faculty across disciplines leads by example and gets people out of their ‘silos.’ Second, make it low effort: giving educators a broad overview of how to incorporate metaliteracy into the assignments they already use lessens the barrier to entry. Finally, if there are specific concerns that the community has, such as AI, address them directly.

Metaliteracy has so much potential to help not just students but all of us to integrate our hard-won knowledge and wisdom that we gain across situations and subjects, and to shape the world we want to live in together. Come and be my neighbor!

References

Jacobson, T., & Mackey, T. (2025). 2025 metaliteracy goals and learning objectives. Metaliteracy. https://metaliteracy.org/learning-objectives/metaliteracy-goals-and-learning-objectives-updated-2025/

Thomas P. Mackey and Trudi E. Jacobson, “Reframing Information Literacy as a Metaliteracy.” College & Research Libraries 72, no. 1 (2011): 62–78. 

Photo of the author Misha Robinson.

Misha Robinson (she/they) holds a Masters in Liberal Studies from Indiana University. She teaches in the English department at The Community College of Baltimore County (CCBC). Their teaching and research foci are English composition, metaliteracy, and neurodiversity and accessibility in education. She presently serves on the CCBC School of World Languages and Literature’s AI Committee, the Neurodiversity Unbound Committee, and on the Textbook Affordability Committee.  When they are not teaching, Misha is an Emotional Support Human for a very spoiled Snowshoe cat named Selkie, collects fabric, and enjoys puzzles.  

This post was written in its entirety by Misha Robinson, and utilized generative AI to check accessibility and provide editing feedback.

Introducing the AI & Metaliteracy OER Toolkit for Teaching and Learning

We are excited to introduce the AI & Metaliteracy OER Toolkit for Teaching and Learning, an openly licensed and adaptable resource that supports teaching and learning with generative AI through the framework of metaliteracy. The toolkit was developed by Empire State University professors Nicola Marae Allain, Tom Mackey, and Eugenio Solis de Ovando, in collaboration with Alena Rodick, Director of Learning Design and Solutions. This project was funded through a SUNY Innovative Instruction Technology Grant (IITG).

As generative AI redefines how we engage with and produce information, metaliteracy provides an essential framework for thinking critically about these technologies and reflecting on how we use them. By emphasizing learner agency and responsible participation, metaliteracy encourages us to consider our roles and responsibilities in AI-mediated environments.

The toolkit can be accessed through OER Commons, downloaded as a PDF, or imported into a learning management system using either the Common Cartridge or Brightspace Cartridge. Visit our new Access the AI & Metaliteracy OER Toolkit page for the available options and instructions

Apply It, Adapt It, Share It

Designed as an open educational resource (OER), the toolkit can be applied, adapted, and shared to fit your needs. Apply the toolkit’s learning activities and modules, which are informed by the Metaliteracy Goals and Learning Objectives; adapt the materials for your learners, teaching setting, or professional development needs; and share what you create.

Meet Our AI Avatars

To introduce the toolkit, Nicola Marae Allain, Tom Mackey, and Eugenio Solis de Ovando experimented with generative AI to create AI avatars of themselves. Eugenio led the AI production, while Nicola designed the environments in which the avatars appear. The videos reinforce the creative use of AI while raising questions about authorship, representation, and agency that are explored throughout the toolkit.

What’s in the Toolkit?

Five instructional modules explore metaliterate learner identity; ethical evaluation and production; collaborative and participatory engagement; development as a metaliterate learner; and next steps for continued learning. The modules include activities, assignments, reflections, rubrics, and supplemental resources, many adapted from our teaching in the Digital Media Arts program. Each module starts with a detailed description, suggestions for adapting the materials, and key takeaways informed by both the Metaliteracy Goals and Learning Objectives and Bloom’s Taxonomy.

We hope you will use the toolkit, make it your own, and share how you are applying and adapting it with your students, colleagues, and learning communities. We look forward to hearing about your experiences at Metaliteracy.org.

We thank Empire State University colleagues Susan Oaks and Cindy Conaway for contributing course-based materials and SUNY Brockport colleagues Kathleen Olmstead and Logan Rath for their additional support of the IITG project.

AI and Metaliteracy OER Toolkit by Nicola Marae Allain, Tom Mackey, Eugenio Solis de Ovando, and Alena Rodick, Empire State University, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Coming up at IFLA WLIC 2026: Metaliteracy, Digital Resilience, and a Meme-Based Response to AI-Driven Disinformation

by Changhong Wu

As generative AI reshapes the information landscape, the line between authentic and fabricated content grows harder to see. Deepfakes, synthetic text, and AI “hallucinations” now circulate alongside genuine sources, and the familiar cues of credibility — fluency, formatting, the look of authority — are exactly what these systems reproduce so well. In this environment, the retrieval-and-evaluation model of information literacy remains necessary but is no longer sufficient.

At the IFLA WLIC 2026 Information Literacy Section Satellite Meeting in Busan, Republic of Korea, we will share a project that responds to this challenge through the lens of metaliteracy. Our presentation, “Building Digital Resilience through Metaliteracy: A Meme-Based Pedagogy to Counter AI-Driven Disinformation,” builds on Mackey and Jacobson’s framework, treating digital resilience as a capability fostered through metaliteracy when learners face AI-driven disinformation — integrating the behavioural, cognitive, affective, and metacognitive domains of learning rather than teaching isolated skills.

Our approach turns abstract metaliterate objectives into something students can see, make, and remember: internet memes. Through a meme-based pedagogy developed at the library of Northeast Normal University, a Chinese “Double First-Class” institution, students decode, create, and reflect on memes as tools for recognising and resisting disinformation. Drawing on a survey of 183 undergraduates, we found balanced competence across all four metaliteracy domains and, encouragingly, a clear tendency to verify rather than to trust at a glance when confronted with the very artefacts generative AI now makes so easy to produce.

The full satellite meeting programme is available online. The presentation will be delivered in person in Busan by Changhong Wu, with Tom Mackey joining remotely to discuss the metaliteracy model.

Opening slide for Building Digital Resilience through Metaliteracy, an IFLA WLIC 2026 presentation by Changhong Wu.

We look forward to sharing our full findings in Busan—and to continuing the conversation here on Metaliteracy.org.

Changhong Wu is an Information Literacy Librarian at Northeast Normal University (NENU), China, where her teaching and research focus on information literacy, metaliteracy, and AI literacy. She serves as a Standing Committee Member of the IFLA Information Literacy Section and as a Board Member of the Chinese American Librarians Association (CALA), and has been a Visiting Scholar at George Washington University.

She teaches a range of credit-bearing courses at NENU— including Historical Data and AI Agent Applications, Data Processing and AI Agent Applications, Digital Curation and Display of Cultural Heritage, and Historical Sources and Information Literacy. Her work on AI literacy and metaliteracy has appeared in leading journals, and she has given keynote and invited talks at venues including IFLA, iSchools, and ALA. She also shares AI-literacy ideas with a public audience of more than 90,000 followers online.

Translating the Metaliteracy Goals and Learning Objectives into Portuguese: A Collaboration Between AI and Human Expertise

By Helda Pinheiro

When I set out to translate the Metaliteracy Goals and Learning Objectives into Portuguese, I realized I had a unique opportunity: why not apply metaliterate thinking to the very tool reshaping our educational landscape? As part of my ongoing work on AI in education, I partnered with Gemini to generate the initial translation, not just to save time, but to test the boundaries of human-AI collaboration in academic localization. The goal was to evaluate the tool’s accuracy, identify where human critical thinking becomes indispensable, and explore how emerging technologies can support a framework as nuanced as Metaliteracy.

The workflow operated as a true collaboration: the initial translation was generated by the AI, followed by a process of critical review, linguistic refinement, and contextual adaptation led by me. At the end of the process, I asked the AI itself to generate an analytical report synthesizing the rationale behind the revisions I had made.

Below are two central examples that illustrate the dynamics of this human-in-the-loop revision:

1. Adapting “Metaliterate Mindset” and “Metaliterate Learner”

  • Initial AI Suggestion: “mentalidade de metaletramento” (a wordy nominal construction) and “aprendiz praticante do metaletramento” (a clunky phrasing).
  • Human Refinement: “mentalidade metaletrada” and “aprendiz metaletrado”.
  • Linguistic Rationale: Human intervention identified a more natural adjectival solution. In Portuguese, the noun letramento (literacy) derives into the adjective letrado (literate). Applying this same morphological rule to create metaletrada/o avoids heavy phrasing, significantly enhancing the document’s cohesion, fluency, and professional tone.

2. Transitioning from “O aprendizado metaliterativo abrange…” to “A aprendizagem metaletrada envolve/compreende…”

  • Initial AI Suggestion: “O aprendizado metaliterativo abrange quatro domínios…”
  • Human Refinement: “A aprendizagem metaletrada envolve, ou compreende, quatro domínios…”
  • Linguistic Rationale: This intervention ensured crucial pedagogical and semantic precision based on two factors:
    • Pedagogical Precision (Aprendizagem vs. Aprendizado): In Portuguese educational theory and academic literature, aprendizagem is the established technical term for describing the active cognitive process of knowledge construction. In contrast, aprendizado sounds more colloquial and focused strictly on an outcome.
    • Semantic Clarity: The AI’s initial choice of the word metaliterativo introduced semantic noise, as readers might mistakenly associate it with literature (literatura) or literary studies. The human selection of metaletrada firmly anchors the concept in its true root: letramento (literacy).

Conclusion: Ultimately, this project served as a practical demonstration of metaliteracy in action. While Artificial Intelligence provided a swift structural baseline, human critical thinking was indispensable for translating context, culture, and pedagogical intent. The refinement went beyond proofreading; it was an exercise in metacognition, critically evaluating machine-generated content to preserve academic rigor. As AI continues to reshape how we learn and communicate, this experience reinforces a fundamental truth of metaliteracy: technology is a powerful co-pilot, but the human mind remains the ultimate navigator. We are excited to share this framework adapted into Portuguese with the Lusophone community, empowering educators and learners to navigate our evolving information ecosystem together.

Helda Pinheiro holds a Master’s degree and a Ph.D. in Information Science from the University of Brasília (UnB), Brazil. She currently conducts research focusing on AI in education, human-AI collaboration, and academic localization. Her doctoral research, defended in 2022, pioneered the study of the Metaliteracy framework in Brazil. She and two colleagues participated in the evaluation and updating of the Metaliteracy framework in 2025. Helda also translated the 2018 and 2025 versions of the Metaliteracy Goals and Learning Objectives into Portuguese, aiming to empower educators and students throughout the Portuguese-speaking world.

CALL FOR PAPERS: Teaching and Learning with AI through Metaliteracy

The Independent Journal of Teaching and Learning is seeking submissions for a special issue on Teaching and Learning with AI through Metaliteracy.

Prof. Thomas P. Mackey and Prof. Nicola Marae Allain from Empire State University have been invited to serve as guest editors for this thematic collection, which celebrates the 21st anniversary of this peer-reviewed international journal from South Africa. The journal brings together researchers and educators from around the world to share scholarship that advances teaching, learning, and educational practice.

We invite submissions of original research and reflective scholarship that explore how metaliteracy can inform teaching and learning with artificial intelligence. Contributions may examine theory, pedagogy, classroom practice, assessment, learner engagement, ethics, creativity, self-directed learning, or interdisciplinary applications across multimodal contexts.

As artificial intelligence continues to influence teaching and learning, and the production and sharing of knowledge, metaliteracy prepares learners for evolving information environments, including those mediated by AI. The metaliteracy model emphasizes learner agency through interconnected learning domains, learner roles, and learner characteristics. We welcome submissions that explore how these core components of metaliteracy can inform teaching and learning with AI across a wide range of educational settings.

Please see the full Call for Papers for submission guidelines, important dates, and the complete list of suggested topics. A downloadable PDF of the call is also available for sharing with colleagues.

Nicola and I look forward to bringing together a diverse collection of scholarship that explores innovative approaches to AI and metaliteracy from international perspectives.

New AI and Metaliteracy Book to be Published in Early 2027

The manuscript for the new edited book by Drs. Nicola Marae Allain and Tom Mackey, AI and Metaliteracy: Empowering Learners for the Generative Revolution, has officially moved into the production phase at Bloomsbury Publishing. Scheduled for publication in early 2027, the volume features a Foreword by Distinguished Librarian Emerita Trudi E. Jacobson and appears in Bloomsbury’s Innovations in Information Literacy series, for which she serves as series editor. As generative AI continues to transform teaching and learning, the collection offers timely perspectives on empowering learners to engage critically and ethically with these technologies.

The new book includes a framing chapter by Allain and Mackey entitled, The Aura of the Image: Embedding AI and Metaliteracy in the Digital Media Arts. The chapter integrates media theory and metaliteracy with adaptable case studies, including examples from Empire State University’s Digital Media Arts program, to explore how metaliteracy can support creative inquiry, reflective learning, and ethical engagement with artificial intelligence.

Bringing together an international community of scholars and practitioners, the collection demonstrates how AI and metaliteracy can foster learner agency, strengthen visual and digital literacy, promote digital citizenship and social justice, and advance ethical engagement across educational and information contexts. Additional chapters examine applications in STEM education, financial literacy, digital workspaces, the metaverse, and library and information settings, while also addressing issues of accessibility and inclusive participation. Collectively, these contributions illustrate the broad applicability of AI and metaliteracy across disciplines and professional environments. The case studies offer innovative approaches that can be adapted and transferred across disciplines, institutions, and learning environments.

In addition, Mackey contributes a chapter co-authored with colleagues from the Intercultural Perspectives on Information Literacy and Metaliteracy (IPILM) virtual exchange team. The chapter examines how information literacy and metaliteracy can be combined with AI education to foster intercultural understanding and global engagement in team-based learning environments.

As publication approaches, we look forward to sharing additional details about the volume and to continuing the conversation about the evolving relationship between artificial intelligence, metaliteracy, and learner empowerment in digital environments.

Chinese Translation of First Metaliteracy Book is Published

The first book introducing the metaliteracy framework, Metaliteracy: Reinventing Information Literacy to Empower Learners (2014) by Thomas P. Mackey and Trudi E. Jacobson, has now been translated and published in Chinese, making the metaliteracy framework more accessible to students and educators across higher education and library communities in China. The translation was initiated and completed by Changhong Wu (Bella Wu), Information Literacy & AI Literacy Librarian, Subject Librarian for History, and Instructor at Northeast Normal University. This is the first of a series that will also include the Chinese translation of Metaliteracy in Practice (2016) and Metaliterate Learning for the Post-Truth World (2018).

Changhong Wu launched the project in 2023 and coordinated the collaboration among the authors, Northeast Normal University Press, and American Library Association Editions to secure publication permissions and guide the translation process.

The publication was highlighted in an IFLA news announcement that noted:

This project reflects Northeast Normal University Library’s ongoing efforts to align with international standards and foster a culture of critical, reflective, and participatory learning among students. We believe that the metaliteracy framework will empower Chinese learners to become not only discerning consumers but also responsible creators of information.

As noted in the IFLA newsletter, the Chinese edition has also been included in the New Education Library Series of Northeast Normal University and will serve as a course text for the credit-bearing class Social Media Literacy and Metaliteracy Capabilities.

This translation represents a significant milestone in the continued international development of metaliteracy as an established framework. It reflects the growing global interest in learner-centered approaches to metacognitive reflection, collaborative learning, and ethical participation in digital environments.

We are deeply appreciative of Bella Wu’s leadership, commitment, and scholarly work in making this translation possible and helping extend the reach of metaliteracy to new academic and professional communities.

-Tom and Trudi

What Does AI Say About Metaliteracy?: I Asked Claude, ChatGPT, and Gemini

Trudi Jacobson

Post One: AI’s Understanding of Metaliteracy

I have been working extensively with ChatGPT on several personal projects, ranging from research into specific antique objects and the historical details they can yield to pastel painting tips. I’ve also used it to plan meals for an individual with multiple health conditions who has strict dietary restrictions. I have compared responses from Claude and ChatGPT, and have had to engage in more research when their answers differed completely. It has been a fascinating process, but I wondered what would happen if I transferred this approach to one of my academic and professional interests. As a next step, I investigated and compared AI responses about metaliteracy’s relevance in this environment. 

This blog post is the first of several in which I will report the findings after asking Claude, ChatGPT, and Gemini several questions about metaliteracy and its role in a burgeoning AI environment. I initially wanted to hear how they would describe metaliteracy. In this first post, I will consider the differences–and similarities–in the responses when I asked the three AI platforms “What do you understand metaliteracy to be?” I put a 300-word limit on their responses.

All three platforms mentioned metaliteracy in connection with information literacy. Claude labeled metaliteracy a framework for information literacy, ChatGPT called it “a contemporary  learning framework that expands traditional information literacy,” and Gemini identified it as “a comprehensive framework that expands the traditional definition of information literacy.”  Gemini was the only one that did not attribute the development of metaliteracy to Tom and me, as co-originators of the concept, while Claude was the only one to provide a date for its development (“around 2011”). Claude linked metaliteracy with the ACRL Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education. Unfortunately, it did so incorrectly, noting that it was “adopted as the conceptual foundation” for the document, rather than threshold concepts. It is worth noting that threshold concepts are mentioned but not attributed to their critical role in the Framework. As an emerging concept at the time, metaliteracy was incorporated into the ACRL document less overtly.

The metaliterate roles that individuals take on in “networked, collaborative, and participatory environments” (Claude), in a “digital networked world” (ChatGPT), and in “participatory environments” (Gemini) are noted to varying degrees in the responses. ChatGPT highlighted production, sharing, collaborating, and reflecting on information in its initial paragraph of the response. Later, it mentions the shifting roles of “reader, author, editor, curator, commentator, and community member.” Claude and Gemini focused on the role of “active producer.” Developing as a producer of information is vital to metaliteracy, so it is appropriate that it appears in all three responses. But the fact that two of them added the word “active” in connection with the producer role is unusual, especially compared to our simpler use of the noun alone. However, we do stress active learner roles, and it might be that these two platforms combined them, either due to space constraints or to their interpretations of our key concepts.

While Claude and Gemini included less about the roles, they both mentioned the four domains, while ChatGPT did not. What ChatGPT did was include a list of six core dimensions: critical evaluation, creation and participation, metacognition, ethical awareness, collaboration, and adaptability. While all six are important to metaliterate learners, this is a rather arbitrary list and does not reflect our core components with their goals and learning objectives. That said, ChatGPT does highlight metacognition in its response, as the others did, though not always naming it:

ChatGPT: “What distinguishes metaliteracy from older literacy models is its self-reflective and participatory orientation.” (bold typeface ChatGPT’s)

Claude: “That last domain [metacognition] is arguably the most distinctive feature. Metaliteracy treats self-awareness as central….” 

Gemini: “It is essentially about becoming a responsible, self-aware digital citizen.”

None of the three responses fully grasps metaliteracy, which raises the question of whether the word limit played a role. If I had given the platforms 500 words or 1,000, how might the results have differed? As this is not a scholarly study, I won’t follow up on that currently. Another approach I might have taken, based on the advice of a friend who has worked extensively with the engineers and others developing AI, is to request that a platform ask questions until it can provide a response about which it is 95% certain. How, or would, the responses change significantly? And would the responses alter based on a query from another individual, or a slight wording change to the query?

As the responses stand, none fully grasped the concept of metaliteracy, nor included all the key components. Yet if they got the general gist, would that be an adequate starting point for those interested in metaliteracy? And possibly a stopping point, given how in-depth–or not–their interest is? Reading all three responses together gave a fuller picture of metaliteracy, albeit one with a few mistakes, misdirections, or gaps. Yet how many people will check three AI platforms for the same query? If they are working at that level, they will be using scholarly sources. I think that additional studies taking some of these points into consideration would be useful. 

A couple of obvious notes about the research process behind this series. First, I’ve never accomplished my primary research so quickly. From idea to data gathered took about 45 minutes, and that included several breaks. Second, it is not surprising, but it is disappointing that no references were included in these preliminary interactions with all three platforms. While the process was fast, the results were inconsistent, incomplete, and lacked documentation. Of course, I could have expanded the number of words and requested proper citations, but I was curious about what AI could tell me about metaliteracy in these brief and limited interactions. My approach very much reflected how people are engaging with these systems for quick answers, similar to the personal examples I shared at the start of this post. It makes me wonder about how someone new to metaliteracy may understand the concept through AI interactions rather than our published research and projects.

Now that I have answers from these three platforms about what they feel metaliteracy is, the next post in this series will examine the responses to the question, “What role does metaliteracy have in preparing individuals to work with AI?” I didn’t suggest revisions to their understanding before asking this question, as their general grasp sufficed to obtain applicable responses. Tom and I encourage your comments on this post and its contents.

 

Register for the AI & Metaliteracy Workshop at SUNY CIT 2026

Generative AI is reshaping how we design assignments, support student learning, and think about authorship and participation. The question is no longer whether to engage with AI in our teaching—but how to do so in ways that are ethical, reflective, and effective.

At the Conference on Instruction & Technology 2026, we invite you to register for a hands-on preconference workshop focused on applying the AI & Metaliteracy OER Toolkit in your own teaching.

Learn to Apply Ethical, Effective Learning with AI Using Metaliteracy
🗓 Tuesday, May 26, 2026
🕒 2:30–5:30 PM ET
📍 SAC 304, Stony Brook University

This interactive session will also mark the official launch of the AI & Metaliteracy OER Toolkit, developed through a SUNY Innovative Instruction Technology Grant by a collaborative team at Empire State University. The project is led by Principal Investigators Nicola Marae Allain and Thomas P. Mackey, with Alena Rodick serving as Project Manager and Eugenio Solis de Ovando leading digital video and AI avatar development. It also includes collaboration with Kathleen Olmstead and Logan Roth, Ph.D., both at SUNY Brockport.

This is a working session designed for direct application. Participants will explore the AI & Metaliteracy OER Toolkit, identify sample assignments and rubrics to adapt for their own courses, and revise those materials for their specific teaching context. Participants will also have the option to use AI as part of this process, modeling reflective and ethical engagement in their design choices. We encourage you to bring a learning activity you would like to develop or revise for your instructional setting.

Participants will leave with practical strategies for integrating AI through the metaliteracy framework, along with adapted assignments they have developed for their own course. They will also gain access to a wide range of resources from the AI & Metaliteracy OER Toolkit, including customizable assignment templates, guidelines, rubrics, learning modules, and implementation strategies. The workshop will also provide opportunities to connect with colleagues engaged in this work, with the potential to continue sharing ideas beyond the session.

AI is not just a new tool—it is reshaping how learners engage with information, create content, and participate in knowledge production. This workshop focuses on how metaliteracy can guide that work in practice, supporting learners as reflective, responsible, and active contributors in AI-mediated environments.

This work also reflects a broader commitment to open and collaborative dialogue about teaching and learning with AI, and we look forward to sharing additional updates as the toolkit becomes more widely available.

The session will be led by Dr. Nicola Marae Allain, Dr. Thomas P. Mackey, and Dr. Eugenio Solis de Ovando.

Please bring your own device and come ready to work with your own course materials.

Register today to join us at the workshop!

From Information Literacies to Metaliteracy: Learner Agency in an AI-Mediated World

The accompanying slide deck is available as a resource for exploring the core components of metaliteracy and AI-related learning activities in greater detail.

As metaliteracy continues to evolve in response to AI and emerging technologies, this keynote invites further reflection and application. Readers are encouraged to consider how these ideas might inform their own teaching and learning contexts—whether by integrating metaliteracy principles into course design, developing new learning activities, or engaging students as active and ethical producers of knowledge. The embedded materials—including two Slido surveys, reflective prompts, and examples of assignments—offer opportunities to explore these concepts in practice and to extend the conversation across diverse educational settings.

We encourage readers to apply these ideas in their own contexts and to share examples of their work with us for possible feature on the Metaliteracy blog.

-Tom and Trudi