Summary of the issues raised through the two elementary school case videos:
I found it interesting that of the two case videos I watched, the only teacher who is really deliberately embracing technology has also embraced Project Based Learning and the constructivist “chaos” that goes along with that kind of learning. This teacher was seasoned enough to be comfortable with this style of teaching and the loss of control such a style entails. Even the new teaches who are closer to or within the generation that is much more technically skilled are not comfortable with using technology in education as a given but see it as an alternative, a wish, or a maybe if … (fill in the blanks from things such “students are the appropriate age”; “students already know the content”; “I have enough support”; “I have extra time”).
The main issues that arose through both these cases at an elementary school level are
- The why and how technology is used (SAMR can guide this);
- the lack of teacher training/application/access/support which is directly contributing to the lack of feelings of comfort with the use of technology for their students; and,
- the limited amount of time in the face of the quantity of learning objectives teachers are expected to guide students through within a year.
Retrieved from: http://lingomedia.com/stages-of-edtech-the-samr-model-for-technology-integration/
For more specific details related to what I noticed about SAMR and the various interviewees’ views of technology see below…
My notes and observations from viewing the video interviews:
- Case 5 Learning Environment 4
| Teacher interview:
This teacher has walls and is therefore able to happily accommodate PBL and being “a noisy class”. Our school has very few classes with walls and no one to my knowledge pursuing a Project Based Learning style. The teacher references still having all the PLOs to cover and thus fitting technology in where possible. I wonder how technology can be used to satisfy the teaching and learning of her grades’ PLOs? Student interview: I noticed the Math Problem book they created. It reminded me of the real world math prompts used by Dan Meyer and others. As for technology integration, I’m not sure I would consider the use of a digital camera or printer part of my qualifications for “good” technology in STEM but perhaps I’m setting the bar too high. When I consider the SAMR model, I can see that the use of digital images and printers, although essentially Substitutionary or Augmentary would still allow students to go deeper in their own learning if that use of technology was paired with lessons designed to use this technology to demonstrate already richer levels of thinking. Albeit this is an older situation where things like MSN were used and Web 2.0 wasn’t around. The soundscapes for science are an interesting way to integrate things from STEM to STEAM and I think the use of garageband software to provide theme-based music to their event is an example of higher SAMR levels of tech integration than the math pictures, although if the students had to create their own math problems and plan two photos to use with them that may increase the levels from surface to deeper levels of SAMR. Retired teacher interview: This teacher feels out of her element when it comes to technology. There is not enough training in the school to make the comfort level of all staff equal. Technology is seen as something that is an addition to learning, although she does admit that the students can help her when she does not know. I don’t get the sense she is comfortable with not being an expert, which makes sense for a top-down model. It’s hard to plan to use something effectively if you, yourself, do not understand it! New teacher interview: The new teacher also does not feel that technology is essential to teaching and does not feel like an expert. She identifies that there is not enough time for her to learn it even though she has attended PD. She finds that there is not support for when there is a tech issue and it falls to her to solve it, for which she feels ill equipped. Even the new teacher training has failed to provide adequate instructional mastery in how to view the use of technology and how to understand and be comfortable with it in an educational setting. This teacher is also reluctant to resource the more tech-savvy teacher beside her because that teacher “has her own thing to do”. One way to solve this is to have tech support people like teacher library media specialists who don’t have a homeroom and full teaching load so they can devote time to troubleshooting, teacher in-service, and support for staff. |
- From Case 8 Learning Environment 7
| Teacher Interview:
This attempts to address the issue of insufficient teacher training in technology at the new teacher level. By providing practical time on the technology, a connection to curriculum PLO topics, and an actual project that they can feel mastery of that is directly taken from and therefore able to be integrated into their teaching, the chances of these teachers using ICT to enhance the learning of their future students should be much higher. The teacher instructor references ideas connected to SAMR by suggesting that straight substitutionary uses are not ideal but that modification and redefinition from the affordances of technology for the students’ learning are the ideal goal. Single Student: This student addresses one of the criteria I’d highlighted for good use of tech, in that it has a read-aloud capacity for students who wouldn’t be able or willing to read the content themselves. The actual project is very teacher-heavy, all the students did was draw the art, the teacher is doing the slomation and captions and background and photography himself, but he does understand that the teacher could change how this is done and allow the students to be involved in the project in much richer ways. Student Pair 1: Identifies that the knowledge required before doing the actual photography must be known already but do not identify the potential of the engaging project as the motivation for students to dig for that knowledge themselves rather than having it given to them. They also discuss how this ICT activity would deepen the students’ science knowledge and allow them to teach a younger or other audience their process (ie. life cycles, water cycle). They also identify the engagement factor and the ability of technology to Augment a standard print textbook or photos. Student Pair 2: Identifies their opinion that this kind of project is too time-consuming or technical for primary aged students to complete, assuming the school has the equipment available in the first place. Even with the equipment, one teacher admits that she would probably not do this project because of the amount of time it would take to do this. Student Pair 3: Their project rationale for using technology is for Augmentation in SAMR, they find it valuable to take the static picture of the food chain in the textbook, and using the same animals, to animate that movement to capture student attention and illustrate the concepts. She raises the point that if this is something a teacher creates in order to help teach, the amount of time involved is cumbersome and counterproductive. I agree completely, a youtube video sharing something someone else has done would be much better for augmentation than reinventing the wheel. These preservice teachers don’t seem to have identified the learning potential of giving this kind of project to the students motivation to get them into digging in looking for their own answers, rather than receiving top-down instruction and then doing something with it. |