Creation can be viewed simply as the act of producing, or causing to exist.  Construction is the building or assembling of an infrastructure. Construction is equal parts inspiration and perspiration. Construction calls on creativity as well as persistence, flexibility, and revision. Construction asks our students and teachers to focus on the power and patience employed during work process…and not just the final resultant work product.

I would view communication in the traditional understanding of ORC to include basic elements of communication as taught in our high schools and universities. During the ORC process students learn during an inquiry process and then send this message out to others using a text or tool of their choosing.

If I have a number of ways of expressing and shaping my message, then the questions that confront me are: which mode is best, most apt, for the content / meaning I wish to communicate? Which mode most appeals to the audience whom I intend to address? Which mode most corresponds to my own interest at this point in shaping the message for communication? Which medium is preferred by my audience? Or by me? How am I positioning myself if I choose this medium or this mode rather than those others

For design this is a crucial factor, and a profound change. The designer of such ‘pages’ / sites is no longer the ‘author’ of an authoritative text, but is a provider of material arranged in relation to the assumed characteristics of the imagined audience. The power of the designer is to assemble materials which can become ‘information’ for the visitor, in arrangements which might correspond to the interests of the visitor. For the visitor however “Information is material which is selected by individuals to be transformed by them into knowledge to solve a problem in their life world” (Boeck, 2002)

et only that for which there is a word can be brought into communication: no word, no communication about it. In image, if there is something that we wish to depict, we can depict whatever we want. We don’t ask: ”Is there an appropriate image we can use?” Contrary to common sense assumptions about language, words are vague.

One of the present tasks of a social semiotic approach to multimodality is to describe the potentials and limitations for meaning which inhere in different modes.

Internet Inquiry Examples

Students collaboratively (with the instructor) identify an area of interest and co-construct a driving question to guide inquiry.

The easiest way for a teacher to begin addressing the hyper-reading of young people might start with the process of elimination, by helping readers remove the clutter on the web pages they encounter. Readability is one online tool that can help in this regard. The tool is free and simple to use: To install it, just drag the “Readability” button up to your browser’s tool bar. When your students are at a website that you want them to read for content, they can simply click on the button to convert the page into a simple black-text-on-white-background format.

In short, online reading compre-hension is online research. Second, online reading also becomes tightly integrated with writing as we communicate with others to learn more about the questions we explore and as we communicate our own inter-pretations. A third difference is that new technologies such as browsers, search engines, wikis, blogs, e-mail, and many others are required. Addi-tional skills and strategies are needed to use each of these technologies effectively

Teach Source EvaluationSkillsIf you want to teach source evaluation skills, have small groups conduct research to answer a three-part problem such as this:1.How high is Mt. Fuji in feet?2.Find a different answer to this same question.3.Which answer do you trust and why do you trust it?As you observe students begin work on the third part of the problem, you likely will see a student begin to use the strategy that you have tar-geted: locating and evaluating the source of the information. When you see someone use this strategy, perhaps by clicking on a link to “About Us,” interrupt the other groups and have this student teach the strategy to the class, explaining how he or she evaluates a source for expertise and reliability. There are many inconsistent facts online that can also be used, just like this, to teach source evaluation including: “How long is the Mis-sissippi River?” or “What is the population of San Francisco?”

With our extensive prior knowledge derived from offline reading, we naturally interpret this standard, using a lens to our past, and teach infer-ential reasoning with narrative text offline.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, online reading may require even greater amounts of higher-level thinking than offline reading. In a context in which anyone may publish anything, higher-level thinking skills such as critical evaluation of source material become especially important online.

A dual-level theory of New Literacies conceptualizes literacy at low-ercase (new literacies) and uppercase (New Literacies) levels. Lowercase theories of new literacies explore several types of elements: (1) a set of new literacies required by a specific technology and its social practices such as text messaging (Lewis & Fabos, 2005); (2) a disciplinary base, such as the semiotics of multimodality in online media (Kress, 2003); or (3) a distinctive, conceptual approach such as new literacy studies (Street, 2003).

It is true that today’s students have grown up in an online world and are developing profi-ciency with gaming, social networking, video, and texting (Alvermann, Hutchins, & DeBlasio, 2012; Zickuhr, 2010). However, this does not nec-essarily mean they are skilled in the effective use of online information, perhaps the most important aspect of the Internet. Studies show that stu-dents lack critical evaluation skills when reading online (Bennet, Maton, & Kervin, 2008; Forzani & Maykel, 2013; Graham & Metaxas, 2003) and that they are not especially skilled with reading to locate information online (Kuiper & Volman, 2008).

"What our collaborative learning style empowers and enables is a student's resilience -- how do you look to your neighbor as a resource, how do you test your own theories, how do you understand if you're on the right track or the wrong track?" says Monique DeVane, College Prep's head of school. "It teaches them that it's not just about content; it's about cultivating habits of mind that are the underpinnings of deeper scholarship."

In math, four times a year, each student is given a set of values or codes to substitute in the equations so that even though the students are working together, they have to focus on the mathematical process and not just the “right answer.” In English, the discussions are open-ended, allowing for multiple right answers.

eachers in the substitution and augmentation phase can use technology to accomplish traditional tasks,  but the real learning gains result from engaging students in learning experiences that could not be accomplished without technology. At the Modification and Redefinition level, the task changes and extends the walls of the classroom.

Instead, TPACK is the basis of effective teaching with technology, requiring an understanding of the representation of concepts using technologies; pedagogical techniques that use technologies in constructive ways to teach content; knowledge of what makes concepts difficult or easy to learn and how technology can help redress some of the problems that students face; knowledge of students’ prior knowledge and theories of epistemology; and knowledge of how technologies can be used to build on existing knowledge to develop new epistemologies or strengthen old ones.

FITness goes beyond traditional notions of computer literacy to require that persons understand information technology broadly enough to apply it productively at work and in their everyday lives, to recognize when information technology can assist or impede the achievement of a goal, and to continually adapt to changes in information technology. FITness, therefore, requires a deeper, more essential understanding and mastery of information technology for information processing, communication, and problem solving than does the traditional definition of computer literacy. Acquiring TK in this manner enables a person to accomplish a variety of different tasks using information technology and to develop different ways of accomplishing a given task. This conceptualization of TK does not posit an “end state,” but rather sees it developmentally, as evolving over a lifetime of generative, open-ended interaction with technology.

At the heart of good teaching with technology are three core components: content, pedagogy, and technology, plus the relationships among and between them. The interactions between and among the three components, playing out differently across diverse contexts, account for the wide variations seen in the extent and quality of educational technology integration.

Clusters of 21st Century Cognitive Competencies

Connected learning posits that by connecting and translating between in-school and out-of-school learning, we can guide more young people to engaging, resilient, and useful learning that will help them become effective contributors and participants in adult society. We also believe that networked and digital technologies have an important role to play in building these sites of connection and translation

1. Formal education is often disconnected and lacking in relevanceClassroom ethnographers have documented how school learning is often disconnected from the contexts where young people find meaning and social connection. School subjects are often thought to impart knowledge and skills that will be useful, or will “transfer to” everyday life and future work, but these connections have proven elu-sive to learning researchers and students alike. In fact, a recent report by the National Academies concluded that “Over a century of research on transfer has yielded little evidence that teaching can develop general cognitive competencies that are trans-ferable to any new discipline, problem or context, in or out of school” (National Research Council, 2012).

To “learn from experience” is to make a backward and forward connection between what we do to things and what we enjoy or suffer from things in consequence. Under such conditions, doing becomes a trying; an experiment with the world to find out what it is like; the undergoing becomes instruction—discovery of the connection of things.

Today’s American youth are entering a labor market strikingly different from earlier generations. Over the last decade, global economic integration and the collapse of the Soviet Union have led to what economist Richard Freeman (2008) has called a “dou-bling” of the global labor market, from a pool of 1.46 to 2.93 billion. This has created a chronic shortage of jobs relative to those who seek them. The economic downturn that resulted from the 2007 financial panic has worsened this shortfall (see Figures 1 and 2).2

Despite its power to advance learning, many parents, educators, and policymak-ers perceive new media as a distraction from academic learning, civic engagement,

onnected learning is realized when a young person is able to pursue a personal interest or passion with the support of friends and caring adults, and is in turn able to link this learning and interest to academic achievement, career success or civic engagement.

While wealthy families are embracing the potential of new technologies for learning, and investing more and more in out-of-school and connected learning, less privileged kids are being left behind. Access to specialized, interest-driven and personalized learning used to be difficult and scarce. But in today’s networked world, there’s no reason why all children should not have the opportunity to pursue connected learning.

Traditional education is failing to engage many students as they enter their middle school, high school, and college years. The culture clash between formal education and interest-driven, out-of-school learning is escalating in today’s world where social communication and interactive content is always at our fingertips. We need to harness these new technologies for learning rather than distraction.

One of my favorite tools to use in doing this is the CRAAP test developed by the University of California at Chico. This method requires students to evaluate a source based on its Currency, Relevance, Authority, Accuracy, and Purpose. In fact, this method could easily be applied to “traditional” sources as well.

When he read the Web address, http://pubweb.northwestern.edu/~abutz/di/intro.html, he assumed that the domain name “northwestern.edu” automatically meant it was a credible source. He did not understand that the “~” character, inserted after the domain name, should be read as a personal Web page and not an official document of the university.

We focus on a particular topic (e.g., racial prejudice), use a particular resource (e.g., To Kill a Mockingbird), and choose specific instructional methods (e.g., Socratic seminar to discuss the book and cooperative groups to analyze stereotypical images in films and on television) to cause learning to meet a given standard (e.g., the student will understand the nature of prejudice, and the difference between generalizations and stereotypes).

Furthermore, the format of the test causes many educators to erroneously believe that the state test or provincial exam only assesses low-level knowledge and skill. This, too, is false. Indeed, the data from released national tests show conclusively that the students have the most difficulty with those items that require understanding and transfer, not recall or recognition.

he Three Stages of Backward DesignThe UbD framework offers a three-stage backward design process for curriculum planning, and includes a template and set of design tools that embody the process. A key concept in UbD framework is align-ment (i.e., all three stages must clearly align not only to standards, but also to one another). In other words, the Stage 1 con-tent and understanding must be what is assessed in Stage 2 and taught in Stage 3.

Teachers are coaches of understanding, not mere purveyors of content knowl-edge, skill, or activity. They focus on ensuring that learning happens, not just teaching (and assuming that what was taught was learned); they always aim and check for successful meaning making and transfer by the learner.

Six facets of under-standing—the capacity to explain, interpret, apply, shift perspective, empa-thize, and self-assess—can serve as indicators of understanding.

Yet, as early adopters, history’s first generation of “always connected” individuals do not have the knowledge and skills to critically explore, build, and connect online. Simply stated, students are often not provided with opportunities in school to practice the web literacies necessary to read, write, and participate on the web.

When is it best to do a Google search versus ask a question on Twitter? Why would students tweet to a particular hashtag or person versus another? When they tweet to people from another country in another time zone, what kind of context do they need to consider? What should they add, remove, or modify in order to communicate better?

Digital skills focus on what and how. Digital literacy focuses on why, when, who, and for whom.

Doug Belshaw’s eight elements of digital literacies, I have just mentioned the civic, critical, creative, and communicative. The other four are cultural, cognitive, constructive, and confidence.