Kassahun - Revision history

Hiticha: /* Prodction 3 */

2020-02-20T10:30:06Z

‎Prodction 3

Hiticha: /* Prodction 3 */

2020-02-20T10:25:31Z

‎Prodction 3

Hiticha: /* Prodction 3 */

2020-02-19T17:59:35Z

‎Prodction 3

Hiticha: /* Production 1 */

2020-01-30T07:50:26Z

‎Production 1

Hiticha: /* Production 2 */

2020-01-30T07:47:18Z

‎Production 2

Hiticha: /* Production 2 */

2020-01-30T07:45:06Z

‎Production 2

Hiticha: /* Production 2 */

2020-01-30T07:39:07Z

‎Production 2

Hiticha at 07:38, 30 January 2020

2020-01-30T07:38:24Z

Hiticha at 07:37, 30 January 2020

2020-01-30T07:37:31Z

Hiticha: /* Prodction 2 */

2020-01-30T07:33:49Z

‎Prodction 2

@@ Line 29: / Line 29: @@
 == Prodction 3 ==
-https:youtu.be/cKFDSn8ABS0
+[[https://youtu.be/cKFDSn8ABS0]]
 == Prodction 4 ==

@@ Line 29: / Line 29: @@
 == Prodction 3 ==
-[https:youtu.be/cKFDSn8ABS0]
+https:youtu.be/cKFDSn8ABS0
 == Prodction 4 ==

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:59, 19 February 2020
Line 29:		Line 29:

	== Prodction 3 ==		== Prodction 3 ==
		+	[https:youtu.be/cKFDSn8ABS0]

	== Prodction 4 ==		== Prodction 4 ==

@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 Brayboy & Maughan (2009). Indigenous Knowledge and the Story of the Bean, Harvard Educational Review, 79(1)
 Mitchell, G., et al (2016). DAAGU: Complexity Pedagogy and e-Learning: Emergence in Relational Networks, International Research in Higher Education Vol. 1, No. 1; 2016.
 == Production 2 ==
 I have read both articles but to start with the first one, Models of literacy in North American schools: social and historical conditions and consequences, the authors identify and discuss three paradigms of literacy in North American schools: the classical, the progressive, and the technocratic. Accordingly, the classicist aim of a literacy of high culture subserved the goals of an aristocratic social structure, the Progressive shift of focus to the pragmatics of interpersonal communication while the technocratic approach to literacy developed in concert with increasing centralization of schooling which led to an emphasis on more standardized and universally verifiable forms of literate behavior. (De Castell & Luke, 1986, p. 87).

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:47, 30 January 2020
Line 23:		Line 23:

	De Castell, S., & Luke, A. (1986). Defining literacy in North American schools: Social and historical conditions and consequences. In S.C. de Castell, A. Luke, & K. Egan (Eds.), Literacy, society, and schooling (pp. 87-109). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.*		De Castell, S., & Luke, A. (1986). Defining literacy in North American schools: Social and historical conditions and consequences. In S.C. de Castell, A. Luke, & K. Egan (Eds.), Literacy, society, and schooling (pp. 87-109). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.*
		+
	Cope, B. & Kalantzis, M. (2009). ‘Multiliteracies’: New literacies, new learning. Pedagogies: An International Journal, 4(3), 164-195.		Cope, B. & Kalantzis, M. (2009). ‘Multiliteracies’: New literacies, new learning. Pedagogies: An International Journal, 4(3), 164-195.

@@ Line 21: / Line 21: @@
 References
 De Castell, S., & Luke, A. (1986). Defining literacy in North American schools: Social and historical conditions and consequences. In S.C. de Castell, A. Luke, & K. Egan (Eds.), Literacy, society, and schooling (pp. 87-109). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.*
 Cope, B. & Kalantzis, M. (2009). ‘Multiliteracies’: New literacies, new learning. Pedagogies: An International Journal, 4(3), 164-195.

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:38, 30 January 2020
Line 13:		Line 13:
	Brayboy & Maughan (2009). Indigenous Knowledge and the Story of the Bean, Harvard Educational Review, 79(1)		Brayboy & Maughan (2009). Indigenous Knowledge and the Story of the Bean, Harvard Educational Review, 79(1)
	Mitchell, G., et al (2016). DAAGU: Complexity Pedagogy and e-Learning: Emergence in Relational Networks, International Research in Higher Education Vol. 1, No. 1; 2016.		Mitchell, G., et al (2016). DAAGU: Complexity Pedagogy and e-Learning: Emergence in Relational Networks, International Research in Higher Education Vol. 1, No. 1; 2016.
		+	== Production 2 ==

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:37, 30 January 2020
Line 14:		Line 14:
	Mitchell, G., et al (2016). DAAGU: Complexity Pedagogy and e-Learning: Emergence in Relational Networks, International Research in Higher Education Vol. 1, No. 1; 2016.		Mitchell, G., et al (2016). DAAGU: Complexity Pedagogy and e-Learning: Emergence in Relational Networks, International Research in Higher Education Vol. 1, No. 1; 2016.

−	I have read both articles but to start with the first one, Models of literacy in North American schools: social and historical conditions and consequences, the authors identify and discuss three paradigms of literacy in North American schools: the classical, the progressive, and the technocratic. Accordingly, the classicist aim of a literacy of high culture subserved the goals of an aristocratic social structure, the Progressive shift of focus to the pragmatics of interpersonal communication while the technocratic approach to literacy developed in concert with increasing centralization of schooling which led to an emphasis on more standardized and universally verifiable forms of literate behavior. (De Castell & Luke, 1986, p. 87).
−	In terms of the concept of literacy, classical call for the aristocracy, progressive for democracy while technocratic calls for individualism/ pluralism with special emphasis on behavior modification. (De Castell & Luke, 1986, p.90). As Plato was for the classicists, John Dewey was for the progressives. Dewey articulated “A philosophy of education which drew from experimental science, child psychology, evolutionary theory, and the moral aspects of American pragmatism.” (De Castell & Luke, 1986, p.97). Dewey also determined to make schooling socially responsive –oriented toward a social future rather than a cultural past. Dewey further explained that the integrated curriculum,” “learning by discovery,” and the “project method” has to be encouraged in the learning environment. Dewey (1929) also noted the difference between the classical literacy and the progressive one “Whereas the classical literacy was grounded in the exemplary text, progressives focused on questions of instructional methods and social use.”(De Castell & Luke, 1986, p. 98).
−	I have also realized that classicism was condemned for imposing a colonized, aristocratic worldview on every student, Progressivism was criticized for its subversive and left-wing ideology. While technocratic education imposes only the surface features, the “skills” of a worldview, and a predominantly “middle-class” one at that (De Castell & Luke, 1986, p. 105). It is important to note that models of literacy instruction have always been derived from concrete historical circumstances. (De Castell & Luke, 1986, p.100). Each has aimed to create a particular kind of individual, in a particular social order. In Canada for example, the importation of a model of literacy instruction first from Britain, and subsequently from the US with that became alien to the indigenous communities. The authors also mention how Indian children were beaten for speaking their tongue, were taught to read “See, Jane, See! Jane helps the mother in the kitchen.” (De Castell & Luke, 1986, p.106). Besides, the authors strongly criticize the idea that there is no necessary relationship between the processes of literacy acquisition and the literate product. According to them unless the instructional process itself is educational, the product cannot be an educated individual. They finally assert that “A literacy curriculum that is imposed, whether on individuals or entire cultures, cannot serve the same ends as one that is derived.”(De Castell & Luke, 1986, p. 107).
−	As far as the second article, “Multiliteracies”: New Literacies, New Learning is concerned, I have mainly focused on the question of what, they mainly emphasize on the need to conceive meaning-making as a form of design or active and dynamic transformation of the social world. With that, they recommend the multimodal literacies with linguistic, visual, audio, gestural and spatial modes of the meaning of meaning becoming integrated into everyday media and cultural practices. In doing so, they call for a pedagogy that recognizes meaning-making as an active, transformative process for the world of change and diversity. Further to the question of why, they suggested that the pedagogy of multiliteracies would involve a range of pedagogical moves, including both “situated practice”, and “overt instruction” but also entailing “critical framing”, and “transformed practice”. (Cope & Kalantzis, 2009, p.166). The “how” of Multiliteracies wants us to move forward and to redesign pedagogy for our changing times? Here, the authors mention, “learning is a process of self-re-creation. Cultural dynamism is the result.” (184).
−	Finally, as the authors spelled out, “Education is one of the key sources of social equity.” (Cope & Kalantzis, 2009, p.168) therefore, it important to come up with the education system that finds an answer to increasing local diversity and global connectedness. Further, multiliteracies strongly calls for the recognition of indigenous knowledge concerning the what of multiliteracy learning, where learners are expected to be active in their learning relevant and practical out of school experiences and the how of multiliteracies where learners bring their diverse knowledge and interests to the learning situation and integrate it to the new knowledge acquired in the learning situation so that they apply it very successfully.
−
−	~~References~~
−	De Castell, S., & Luke, A. (1986). Defining literacy in North American schools: Social and historical conditions and consequences. In S.C. de Castell, A. Luke, & K. Egan (Eds.), Literacy, society, and schooling (pp. 87-109). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.*
−	~~Cope, B. & Kalantzis, M. (2009). ‘Multiliteracies’: New literacies, new learning. Pedagogies: An International Journal, 4(3), 164-195.~~

	== Prodction 3 ==		== Prodction 3 ==