# data[].attributes.headline
SVZ comments: the local/global difference is most glaring in terms of difference. I see the technology piece as a shift, but always think back on the new tech of the pencil (back in the day) and how that was a shift as well. Tools seem to provide new ways of engaging with content.  Messages to the larger/broader public need a different venue that the classroom wall as you noted! Thank you...fun to use padlet for this.

# data[].attributes.subject
SVZ comments: the local/global difference is most glaring in terms of difference. I see the technology piece as a shift, but always think back on the new tech of the pencil (back in the day) and how that was a shift as well. Tools seem to provide new ways of engaging with content.  Messages to the larger/broader public need a different venue that the classroom wall as you noted! Thank you...fun to use padlet for this.

# data[].attributes.body
Wondering if you have played around with the voice/audio tool at all...is it useful?

# data[].attributes.body
Both have the potential to bring change and influence others just to varying degrees.

# data[].attributes.body
Traditional literacy instruction looks more often at how does it connect to the curriculum and the topic chosen by the instructor.

# data[].attributes.body
More current methods of literacy instruction (when using technology and when not) look not only at the connection to curriculum but also at the connection to individual, whole group, socially and other connections.

# data[].attributes.body
Literacy education, specifically reading and writing, when using technology have an almost unlimited amount of sources of inspiration/guidance and the ability to use/explore as much of it as time or desire allows.

# data[].attributes.body
Traditional reading and writing curriculum instruction and activities have a limited amount of ability to look at sources for influences and a limited amount of sources.

# data[].attributes.body
In traditional literacy (both reading and writing) learning if often teacher to student, not peer-to-peer.

# data[].attributes.body
More modern and technologically influenced methods of writing allow for more peer-to-peer learning. (Montgomery, 2014, p. 204)

# data[].attributes.body
The use of technology in literacy curriculum allows students to read and access knowledge from an almost unlimited supply of sources giving them a more global view and helping them to recognize issues that need to be changed. It also gives a greater number of people (include young students) the ability to get involved in society (governmental and otherwise) to advocate for change. As Montgomery put it in her article, "Even our youngest learners can therefore become empowered by producing counter-hegemonic digital media, such as podcasts, to share their voices and to promote democratic social change" (Montgomery, 2014, p. 203)

# data[].attributes.body
The use of technology in literacy education provides students with the ability more so than pen and paper learning to practice multiple content skills at once.

# data[].attributes.body
Both are a means of expressing oneself and showing content knowledge.

# data[].attributes.body
More difficult to adapt to various learning styles and skills, especially when guided by strict, required standards. Not as many avenues in regards to the skills/talents that people have, the different ways in which people work, learn and express themselves

# data[].attributes.body
More adaptable to multiple learning styles and different skills/talents.

# data[].attributes.body
Paper and pencil, for the most part is easier to provide for everyone, at least in compared with more expensive technology.

# data[].attributes.body
On what could be a negative side, depending on how it is handled, computers and other such technology are harder to provide for everyone than paper and pencils.

# data[].attributes.body
Traditional writing is more likely to only have a local impact, often not even making it outside the classroom door and/or students home.

# data[].attributes.body
Montgomery's use of technology or digital writing allows students a more global platform

# data[].attributes.body
The purpose of writing in traditional literacy seems to be more to assess student knowledge not their lives (past or present) or their passion (though some teachers do try to use it for that purpose at times, in that case I feel they would fall into the other camp).

# data[].attributes.body
The purpose of writing also seemed to be a way of letting teachers (and other students) see and understand what was going on in students lives outside of the classroom and then taking that information and incorporating it into the curriculum as is appropriate.

# data[].attributes.body
Students don't often share their writing or work together on it to a significant level. It's often a student/teacher connection when it comes to reviewing/discussing writing.

# data[].attributes.body
Students really read, discussed and got into each other's work.

# data[].attributes.body
In traditional literacy writing is viewed more as an independent/personal activity which it is and can be at times but there isn't as much focus on how it can impact others (expect for during the persuasive writing unit ;) )

# data[].attributes.body
Writing (and literacy in general) in the way Heffernan, Lewison & Montgomery view/practice it seems to be more of a social activity.

# data[].attributes.body
Students are often told what to write about or given a choice of options guided only by the curriculum

# data[].attributes.body
Students are given more of a choice in what to write about

# data[].attributes.body
In traditional literacy instruction students are generally taught to write about themselves/their experiences without connection to others and those stories are not usually looked at in the larger light of social/political issues. This is not necessarily done maliciously it is just the traditional practice, the "tell me about you" writing assignment that isn't often taken much farther than reading it aloud to the class and hanging it in the hallway.

# data[].attributes.body
The use of "social narratives" (Heffernan & Lewison, 2003) Instead of students writing only about themselves for purposes that are usually self-focused and/or for the purpose of simply completing an assignment students connect their stories with the stories of others and combine those experiences to write something new. This is done both for curriculum reasons but also for reasons of social action and connection.

# data[].attributes.body
Literacy as presented by Montgomery, Heffernan & Lewison is often very "non-traditional" in that with reading texts are used the represent many different cultures, peoples and view points especially those often stigmatized by the majority in power. In writing, instead of focusing on topics of little to no substances often just for the purpose of meeting a standard requirement, it is used to address a variety of social issues both locally and globally. It is used not only to teach a skill but to make a positive impact on society.

# data[].attributes.body
Traditional literacy seeks to get students to think "according to the rules" so to speak, to complete reading and writing tasks that are dictated by the majority and are often very "cookie cutter" in their make up.

# data[].attributes.body
Both are guided to varying extents by the mandated curriculum

# data[].attributes.body
In the Heffernan & Lewison article one point made was that, "Writing mini-lessons with these social-issues texts focused not only on craft and characterization, but on the ways published authors constructed narratives to influence readers and call attention to issues and interests. (Heffernan & Lewison, 2003, p. 437). In other words, the final goal of the lesson was not for the students to simply understand and recognize the fundamentals of writing and to show those in your work but to recognize what a text was calling attention to, what influence it put forth and to help the students seek to have the same kind of purpose in their writing.

# data[].attributes.body
Traditional literacy, writing especially, focuses more on the skill and quality of the work, the end product is the result.

# data[].attributes.body
In both methods, skill acquisition is still a focus and still important but it's what is then done with those skills that is different.

# data[].attributes.body
In traditional literacy education, in all areas typically the goal of the instruction is for students to learn a skill and be able to use that skill to pass a test or complete other basic, necessary tasks in life. For example you learn how to write in complete sentences and how to structure paragraphs so that you can write research papers in high school.

# data[].attributes.body
Luke and Freebody's Four Resources Model of Reading (Adapted by Heffernan & Lewison)
1. Coding Practices         2. Pragmatic Practices
3. Text-Meaning Practices 4. Critical Practices

This I believe takes literacy curriculum (be it writing or any other component) from something you "do" to something you "use" for a specific, driven purpose.

# data[].attributes.body
In traditional literacy what is taught is driven more by the teacher and the set, standard curriculum

# data[].attributes.body
Literacy when taught in the style described by these authors is very student driven