Glancy, K. (2008). spk2usoon? Literacy on Planter Internet. Teacher Journal: Curriculum and Assessment, September, 46-48
Freesmith, D. (2006). Who’s ‘dumbing down’ the curriculum? A defence of critical literacy. Teacher Journal: Curriculum and Assessment, August 40-42
Who’s ‘dumbing down’ the Curriculum? A Defence of critical literacy by the Australian Council for Educational Research looks weights up the importance of critical literacy via argument provided within The National newspaper stating that it is crowding the curriculum. It rebuts the argument by breaking it down into the potential fears of the party producing such a claim; having a nation that is able to be empowered via their education to navigate through the power that multimodal texts have, fears of the unknown in regards to mass media and its uses and that traditional texts in English won’t be taught. All in all it brings it to a close by demonstrating that producing such claims reinforces the importance of critical literacy. Going back to more traditional practices isn’t in alignment with the Productive Pedagogies’ cultural knowledge, active citizenship or connectedness to the world that is endorsed by our current government; thus reiterating that change cannot be stopped.
Mills, Kathy A. (2008). The seven habits of highly effective readers. National Conference for Teachers of English and Literacy www.englishliteracyconference.com.au
Ryan, M., & Rossi, T. (2007). The Transdisciplinary Potential of Multiliteracies: Body Performances and Meaning-Making in Health and Physical Education. In A. Healy (Ed.), Multiliteracies and Diversity in Education :New Pedagogies for Expanding Landscapes. (pp. 30-57). South Melbourne: Oxford University Press
The Transdisciplinary Potential of Multiliteracies: Body Performances and Meaning-Making in Health and Physical Education by Mary Ryan and Tony Rossi also highlights the importance of Productive Pedagogies connection with students’ lives via making meaning through mind and body with a body-as-text approach. It breaks down how bodily practices are ‘immersed in, described by and used to inscribe multiple literacies.’ (p31) under two headings; ‘literacies for physical activity and movement; and the literacies of health’. Here the complex web of understanding uses Kalantzis and Cope’s (2004a) Four Main Knowledge Processes. These understandings are supported by Luke & Freebody’s four resources model (1999) and Darrant & Green’s 3D Model of Literacy.
Minchenton, D. & Exley, B. (2009). Curriculum literacies : linguistic design in everyday science texts, Literacy Learning : the Middle Years, (February).
Dale Minchenton & Beryl Exley’s Curriculum literacies: Linguistic design in everyday science texts brings forth the point that we tend to ignore the ‘… literacies that carry and connect the content’. It looks at ‘one aspect of curriculum literacies, that of linguistic design (the London Group,2000)’ using the link between science and literacy via bread wrappers as scientific text. Through this practical deconstruction taken from the Australian Academy of Science’s Primary Connections Project suggested to do in the Middle Years it concluded that there is no standard format and significant as what is put on the wrapper is equal to that not. Thus arguing that this is an essential element for doing science for future everyday life.
Henderson, R. (2004). Recognising Difference: One of the Challenges of Using a Multiliteracies Approach? Practical Primary, 9(2) June, 11- 14.
Cross, R. (2008). Monolingual literacy in multilingual context Working paper presented at the AARE International Educational Research Conference University of Canberra, ACT, November
Russell Cross’s study on ‘Monolingual literacy in multilingual context’ draws upon how the monolingual constructions of teachers from an English Speaking background get in the way when teaching literacy to bilingual or multilingual students. It draws forth that the National Curriculum caters for an ‘...all but a “first language: -only perspective on language and literacy development’ yet fails to cater for the’… social, cultural and linguistic “difference” into… the status quo/s. It analysis highlighted three key themes; Literacy for learning, language for literacy and language as literacy. Through this it shows us the assumptions made that will hinder the development of connection between the teacher, learner and content preventing what Productive Pedagogy calls “substantive conversation” allow the formation of a shared understanding.
Gaffney, M. (2010) Enhancing Teachers’ Take-up of Digital Content: Factors and Design Principles in Technology Adoption . accessed 03.03.11 http://www.thelearningfederation.edu.au/verve/_resources/Enhancing_Teacher_Takeup_of_Digital_Content_Report.PDF
Enhancing Teacher’ Take-up of Digital Content: Factors and Design Principles in Technology Adoption by Professor Michael Gaffney highlights that ‘…teacher take-up of digital content is a multi-faceted undertaking’ that consists of two dimensions; Types of factors associated with teacher take-up of digital content and the nature of the tools teachers use to support the content. This research has produced four factors for consideration accompanied by the Technology Adoption Model. Findings within the contextual factors found include; support, timeline, policy clarity and relevance to curriculum so to align with Productive Pedagogies requirements for Higher Order Thinking, Deep Knowledge and Understanding.
Healy, A. (2007). Expanding Student Capacities: Learning By Design. In A. Healy (Ed.), Multiliteracies and Diversity in Education :New Pedagogies for Expanding Landscapes. (pp. 2-29). South Melbourne: Oxford University Press
Chapter 1 Expanding Student Capacities: Learning By Design Pedagogy Annah Healy provides a epistemological theory of learning: Learning by Design (Kalantzis & Cope 2005). This conceptual learning framework ‘aims to engage students’ life-world interests and ways of being…’ ‘by promoting student agency’ thus strongly supporting Productive Pedagogies’ academic engagement, self regulation, inclusivity, group identity and active citizenship. This is done through the use of four knowledge process; Experiencing, Conceptualising, Analysing and Applying whilst also looking at text design. The students agency is protected pedagogically via the use of a community of learners context, which is flexible to cover civic and private activity. Thus flexible enough to cater for the natural learning diversity within any group of people.
Santoro, N. Using the Four Resources Model Across the Curriculum. Text Next: New Resources for Literacy Learning pp51-67 accessed:15.03.11 education.qld.gov.au/literacy/docs/four-resource-model.pdf
Ninetta Santoro’s chapter is written for in-service teachers; it provides a practical deconstruction of Luke and Freebody’s (2000) Four Resource Model. For her purpose Ninetta defines literacy via Winch’s (2004) ‘ we can think of literacy not merely as a single set of skills, but as a way of operating with a variety of texts within particular sets of social situations… Literacy practices are embedded in the practices of our everyday lives’. It highlights that ‘[i]ncreasingly, middle-years teachers are realising that teaching of subject-based content s linked inextricably to the teaching of subject literacies.’ Thus to be literate and for success in today’s assessment pieces students are needed to be ‘…explicitly taught subject-specific vocabulary or …linguistic ‘tools’ of comparison’ .