The Byline read:

Very much in line with the goals of the NZ curriculum. Jamie McKenzie shows how ICT can be used to engage all students in serious thought about the important question and issues of their lives. In contrast to the cut and paste thinking and powerpointlessness that can result from the use of new technologies if we are not careful Jamie emphasizes activities that build the comprehension skills of all students, challenging them to wrestle with demanding questions calling for inference, analysis , synthesesis and evaluation. At the same timer he calls for curriculum that is both engaging and authentic, harnessing the curiosity and passions of the young to fuel inquiry.

Jamie stated that the best definition of thinking is in the NZ curriculum.

Here are a few links:

http://nochildleft.com/

http://www.fno.org/

http://www.gutenberg.org/wiki/Main_Page

Inspiration

One statement that stood out to me during the session was when Jamie talked about ‘Other’ Literacies besides Maths and Reading his list is below:

Technological

Artistic

Visual

Social

Emotional

Merchanical

Linguistic

Natural

Ethnic

Cultural

Kinesthetic

Environmental

I thought of Oral

But I have to ask the questions:

If these are different types of Literacy

What do they look like? What does he mean by each of these?

Then which ones are teachers to be concerned about?

Which one’s require a line or two in National Frameworks?

Comprehension

Young students need to flow and engage with each of these: Jamie says it better than me

I recorded the session with Jamieson MacKenzie but am unable to share the contents with you in the audio format. As I listen to it again, perhaps I’ll be able to share some notes and thoughts… He is down in Dunedin tomorrow so if you’re down there catch up with him. His message is spot on and I wish I was as animated and engaging as he was.

What I have learnt today is to ask AHEAD of time if I can record peoples sessions. But the few times I have asked speakers if I could share them as a podcast the reasons given for a ‘NO’ answer have never been: “Well, if you’d asked me before…”.

I wonder, perhaps if the bottom line is the real reason. Perhaps these same sessions are repeated over and over and if they are made available publicly the audience number goes down.There is als othe thought then that the message is being diluted, changed and, through blog notes et al., subtly altered from the original.

A distinction, therefore, needs to be made from what is the presentors material to what are mine, and your additional thoughts/concerns/ questions and general wittering.

Wittering, though, has some value. The value in this day and age is the global voice conponent of the message of educational reform. The “witterings” ca not nor should not be ignored.