Constructive Critique: Web Literacy Standards
First of all, I appreciate that Doug and friends at Mozilla are taking this idea on. It will be very valuable to teachers to consider.
Interesting that these two pieces are smaller in size. In schools, these two get more attention by teachers than any other.
I'm not quite sure the meaning of "web mechanics" comes through here. How is it related/different from navigation and security?
What's missing for me here, as a teacher and writer, is the idea of "play," which seems like an idea that should be in this column somehow. We play to learn when it comes to technology -- acknowledge that we need to dive in, step back, reflect, and understand.
This piece of the graphic is helpful because otherwise, it might be difficult to see how the layers work together.
I am glad to see remixing as a central idea here.
These elements are important -- showing the shift that technology can bring to "makers" and creators -- connecting with the world.
Is there a rationale to the way the layers are constructed? (ie, Does the bottom box have more/less importance than the top box?)
I like how design is part of this. We don't teach this enough and yet, as a literacy skill in the media-saturated world, the concept of design speaks volumes for how to articulate ideas. (For example, I am struggling with the icons for my notes here, since they are limited, and they don't quite express the tone and mood of each comment as I want. I have a conflict between design and message in my critique.
Wondering if privacy belongs here, or over in the building column. I'm not sure.
I really appreciate the phrases of exploring, building and connecting. That says a lot about the intent of these standards, and how we can view technology.