Archive for the ‘concept acquisition’ Category

The sharing process in our case could have used a little more time. There is a warmup period where we informally caught up with what we’d done and how we done it over the last week. In my case the  process of creating a network is slowed down by  a couple of factors, the main one being almost all of my time is currently being used putting my Field Inquiry into action. The second factor is my standing as a relative newbie to Twitter and its functionnings. I’m certainly spending time trying to develop my own PLN, but so far I am still very much in the learning process. I can easily get sidetracked.
I will have to exercise discipline in the form of staying on task while on Twitter. I will also have to do a little more homework on the inner workings of Twitter; some form of organization in whom I follow would be helpful i.e. one group for assessment, one for technology, one for PBL, etc.
I have learned that by following my cohort peers on Twitter, I can see who they’re following and in turn add those whom I find of interest to my list of “following”. I look forward to a day where I can log on to Twitter and use it efficiently as a source of tools for me to implement, but also as a place to share my, and other educators’, successes.
 All of a sudden, in an exponential sort of way, my network is growing in leaps and bounds. From my cohorts, to whom they follow, and in turn whom they  follow, and whom they  follow…
Now, to get my Social Studies students on board!
While this article is certainly worthy of praise based on the fact that it was written in the mid nineties, and was very forward looking for the time, I found many aspects familiar. There were similarities with the Leu article (Leu, et al. (2004) “Defining Literacy and New Literacies”) and its variety of literacies called multiliteracies here. The point was again made, in a very wordy fashion that made comprehension difficult at times, that the number of literacies and the number of people using them was so important that it behooves us to take them into account when planning literacy activities and assessments.
Success will be atainable in more ways, through a variety of means of expressing ones’ learning, ones’ level of literacy in a given area. No longer will pen and paper be de rigueur to demonstrate concept acquisition; instead one’s literacy should be allowed to be expressed in several different ways thanks to the multiple literacies now given more validity. In fact, success may be measured in terms of which literacy is chosen for any given activity. Success might be a reflection of the judgement of the learner in selecting the best or most appropriate communication of information tool.
Remarkably it appears that to the authors, the notions of diveristy and multi culturalism seem to be new ones; this is probably due to the fact the New London Group is composed of members from the UK, the US, and Australia. Had there been a Canadian on board, it might have been written differently. Diversity and multiculturalism have been a cornerstone not only of Canadian Education but of the Canadian Identity as a whole, since Pierre Trudeau’s Cultural Mosaic and Just Society made their entrance on the Canadian scene in the late Sixties.
Still, the authors took great pains in reminding their readers that what they wished for most was to create a document that would lead to open minded discussions and to an undertaking of a task that needs to be addressed. It is indeed an important document that underlines the challenges educators around the world face in dealing with the rapidly growing number of literacies and the adjustments in design precipitated by such a proliferation.