These are good questions. Indeed, many of the manuscripts we are now adjudicating provide a picture of what it means to be a reader and writer in the 21st century and, more often, what the teaching of reading and writing looks like or might look like in light of changing times and changing notions of literacy in New Times.As we near the end of the first decade of the 21st century, there is much yet to explore in the questions posed by Luke, Elkins, and Goodson. However, as educators and researchers become increasingly comfortable with new literacies and the teaching of 21st-century textual practices, we may want to focus on broader questions of meaning and significance in these times-in our times; some might say, hard times. We begin our editorship by asking, What does the teaching of reading and writing mean in these times for adolescent and adult learners, their teachers, and the larger society? What are the implications of these literacies? These are practical questions of context and condition and effect. They are also ethical questions, ultimately ones of value and significance.We suggest that these questions have much to do with what the new literacies and their pedagogies can and might do for us and those with whom we share the planet. Like many of you, we believe that literacy education is about something more than improving test scores, intensifying capitalism, or in the case of digital literacies the mixing of image and print. We suspect that the ongoing issues of peace and conf lict and of violence, poverty, and oppression; the interest in sustainable futures; and the growing concern surrounding the

In this column, content area literacy scholars Tom Bean and David O'Brien challenge the older “infusion” model of content area literacy with its emphasis on generic strategies. Rather, they argue for and provide examples of projects that draw on the unique dimensions of various disciplines like history, science, and English, particularly in light of the Common Core State Standards. They offer alternative approaches that capitalize on students' interests in multimedia and the arts. Acknowledging the increasingly diverse dimensions of our classrooms and students' transnational experiences, Bean and O'Brien call for creative lesson and unit planning that engages students in preparation for global citizenship.

This paper presents the results from field testing of a unique approach to the navigation of a fleet of autonomous underwater vehicles (AUVs) using only onboard sensors and information provided by a moving surface ship. The approach, considered moving short‐baseline (MSBL) navigation, uses two transponders mounted on a single surface ship that alternately broadcast acoustic messages containing one of the parameters of the kinematic state of the surface ship. The broadcasts are initiated according to a predefined schedule so that the one‐way travel time (OWTT) of the acoustic messages may be used to determine the range to the transponder. Each AUV in the fleet uses the surface ship state measurements and ranges provided by the acoustic messages in two extended Kalman filters (EKFs) for state estimation. The first EKF merges the intermittent surface ship state measurements with a kinematic model to estimate the state of the surface ship. This is necessary because the presented approach uses 13‐bit acoustic messages as opposed to the more commonly used 32‐byte messages, which allow the full state to be encoded in a single broadcast. The second EKF uses the current surface ship state estimate to properly interpret the acoustic ranges, combining them with a kinematic model to estimate the state of the AUV itself. Numerous MSBL navigation experiments were compared against a more traditional approach using a long‐baseline (LBL) array of transponders and OWTT acoustic ranging. The results of all tests were verified by independent LBL measures of position.

No abstract