An interesting approach. Much better to start with learning rather than what is to be examined.  My suspicion is that you could use any number of different underlying frameworks (including any number of learning style theories and possibly even astrology) to achieve something similar: it's about thinking about the diverse ways learning happens more than the particular framework. I tend to use the Lewin/Kolb cycle in a similar way, sometimes Pask's serialist/holist model, occasionally even multiple intelligences. Though I am highly sceptical of all of them as meaningful representations of reality, it's useful in the design process, as you say, to have an aide memoire. With that in mind, using this framework might make it rather easy to forget reflection. Reflection seems to be an implied afterthought in the production learning type, rather than something central to the activity. This is quite strange, given Laurillard's Conversational Framework in which reflection plays such a central and critical binding role.

My more general slight concern with the approach is that, in a truly integrated design, all of these learning types are tightly intertwingled. Especially when experiences/activities are correllated with technological toolsets (as suggested by the cards), the metaphor runs the risk of being treated as one of assembling pieces to build a machine. It would be very easy to come up with a Lego-like construction, one of those awful designs where students go to one place for their discussions, another for their acquisition, another for their practice, etc. Perhaps it would be better thought of as being more like a cake, in which the individual ingredients are inseparable and indistinguishable from one another when they come out of the oven. And, of course, it makes a huge difference how you mix them, and how you bake them, with each part and each process deeply affecting all the rest.

Thanks for your comments Corinne, Mary, Jon and Elena.

Good idea Mary. I hanged the poster here too (at the ELC)

Thanks Jon for your comment. You got a good point.

I agree 'Critical thinking in x' would make the meaning of the title even more descriptive and meaningful. However, in the context of the conference (Design for Learning: Fostering deeper learning, critical thinking and engagement), I think the title of the poster was more suitable and gave me more opportunities to get my point across in an already complex discussion.

Anyway, I think Mary is right too. If we understand Literacy as the ‘Competence or knowledge in a specified area’ (Oxford Dicrtionary) and agree with the idea of ‘infinite literacies’, ‘x literacy’ would be equally worthwhile

All in all, from the Bricolage perspective, I think you are totally right!

Hi Elena:

Thanks for your critical comment. Yeah, if we think critically, literacy is pretty much associated to knowledge, indeed.

In the context AU is going through, I think it would be interesting to replicate this study to know our student population even better.

Part 1 of 3  https://idealprojectblog.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/ideal_report_final.pdf

Part 2 of 3  https://idealprojectblog.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/ideal-report-2-final.pdf