I have examined the SECTIONS framework in some of my other course work and upon revisiting the framework again now, the ‘S for students’ portion of the model continues to be one of the most critical aspects to me personally. When I am considering implementing a new learning technology in my own classroom, this element of the model is most often at the forefront of my thinking.

As educators, we all understand how important it is to know our learners as well as we possibly can. We need to find their frustration, instructional and independent working levels as early on in the school year as possible in order to shape our instruction to best meet the needs of our learners. The classrooms of today are comprised of students with very diverse needs. It is in fact this diversity that is pushing me to include technology more and more in my classroom, as a means to individualize my instruction.

When I am thinking about the appropriateness of the technology that I am choosing (or possibly designing) as Bates and Poole advise to do, I often think about whether the resources that cater to my lower learners looks (sorry, for lack of a better word) babyish or not. My grade five students will not buy into materials (whether it is on a computer screen or not) that looks like it was made for a primary student. These students already have enough to be self-conscious about without having to worry about that too. I also have to be careful of online tools that have higher readability levels without features that allow the students to be read aloud to. If my lower readers cannot read the instructions, questions or basic text for a task, my time is monopolized by a few when I should be circulating and facilitating all of the learners. At the same time, I want the learning to be rich and authentic rather than contrived and hokey. Students know very quickly how they feel about a game or learning tool and they will not expend their energy or invest their time on something that they do not enjoy or see value in. Knowing your students is incredibly important when considering which learning technologies to incorporate into your instruction.

Although it is difficult to determine which of the remaining sections of the model is the next most meaningful to me, I would have to say that the ‘E for ease of use’ is of high importance as well. I appreciate the fact that Bates and Poole have emphasized the need for learning technology to be easy to use for both the students and the teachers. If I present students with a learning tool or resource that is too far beyond their realm of experience or skill set, chances are they will be reluctant to take the time and put in the effort to become familiar with the technology unless they are intrinsically motivated to do so. In my experience, students are most receptive when our learning resources pose a challenge for them, but they need to be able to master how to actually use the resource fairly quickly. The case is not any different for educators. Time is a precious commodity in this profession and if teachers cannot quickly and easily become comfortable users of the technology or resource themselves, many of them will likely abandon the possible implementation of the new resource in favour of something tried and true or something that is simply easier for them to use. Bates and Poole’s final query under the ‘E,’ which is ‘How reliable and well tested is the technology?’ can be the real determining factor in getting teachers to ‘buy in’ to a new learning tool. If they can speak with students or other educators that have actually tried out the resource that is in question and find the feedback to be favourable, they are more likely to consider using the resource themselves. Many teachers do not want to waste time or energy on an ‘iffy’ resource. They will wait until it has been piloted by someone else to see if the resource is worth investing in. In my own experience, even when our school district provides training and ongoing tech support for certain school or district wide implementations, teachers that find the resources too time consuming or labour intensive will not follow through with the implementation.

All of the elements in the SECTIONS framework are very important to consider when trying to make informed decisions about implementing new learning tools in the classroom. One could argue that ‘C for cost’ is actually the most important aspect of the model and should be considered first since if the resource is too extravagant for a school or district budget to warrant pursuing, than all of the other areas of the framework are redundant. In order to avoid wasted money, time and energy, a framework such as this should be used by those in decision making positions before resources are purchased. I am sure that all educators have stories they could tell about resources that were purchased for our schools (usually without teacher input) that now sit in amongst the basal readers and broken microscopes unused and gathering dust. Hopefully, the use of models such as this can eliminate this scenario from reoccurring in the future.

References:
Bates, A. W., & Poole, G. (2003). Effective Teaching with Technology in Higher Education:
Foundations for Success. (pp. 75 – 105) Jossey-Bass, An Imprint of Wiley.InterActivity- Establishing Presence Online