Tag Archives: SAMR

TPCK, SAMR & Backwards Design

As I was reflecting on the concepts of PCK and TPCK this week, I was reminded of the importance of planning as part of sound PK whether with an additional C or T or just in general.  Specifically, the idea of “backwards design”, or “assessment up” planning, where teachers start with the end in the mind, usually the assessment of specific curriculum expectations to be demonstrated in a certain way, and then work back from that end point to discover the nitty gritty of content delivery to best position students to be successful in their eventual learning demonstration.

I believe this is a foundational practice for teachers who produce successful learners and who hope to use a technology integration framework, such as TPCK, or analyze their current and future integration using the SAMR lens, effectively.  As with all things that get suggested for teachers to do or add or implement for their practice, however, it becomes a question of how does one start?  There is a lack of time and a sense of wasting one’s time “re-inventing the wheel” that goes unaddressed.  Having some guidance already prepared to assist teachers in their backwards planning with TPCK goes a long way, in my opinion.  Like others mentioned in their posts, this is not my first exposure to TPACK.  A 2009 paper by Harris, Mishra & Koehler included the importance of adding what they’ve termed “Learning Activity Types” to the toolkit of the teacher using TPCK to backwards plan lessons that provide higher level/rich-technology integration. It’s not enough just to know what we want to teach and try to fit technology in as an afterthought.  As Mishra and Koehler (2006) mentioned, “Merely introducing technology into the educational process is not enough” (p.1018).  These authors go further in their 2009 paper and state, “effective teaching requires knowledge of both the activity types that are appropriate for teaching specific content and the manners in which particular technologies can be utilized as part of the lesson, project, or unit design” (p.406, emphasis added).  This, to me, sounds like the essence of backwards design planning.

I once took an ISTE Schoology Course (cleverly named iPadeology) which had specific resource pages about TPCK, SAMR, differentiation with technology, and various instructional models, including STEM. They provided two very useful forms (licensed under Creative Commons for our use) that I’d saved and wanted to share in light of this week’s topic.  I hope you find them useful:

On a personal professional note, I’ve recently found myself applying some PK in my creation of group structures for our school’s newly formed Minecraft: Education Edition STEAM Club.  This year’s club challenge is building our school, to scale, where 1 metre = 1 Minecraft block.  There are many different areas in our school to be measured, graphed, and built and I’ve spent the last week creating multi-grade zone crews to oversee each area.  As I finished, I suddenly recalled something I’d read in a previous MET course about the effects of gender on gaming technology behaviour.  The gist of the relevant findings of the research study were that when dual genders were given the chance to play a digital game, the girls always back-seated themselves while the boys took over.  However, if placed in same gender groupings, the girls often excelled, taking risks, learning socially from each other, and expressing a greater sense of accomplishment, satisfaction, and enjoyment with the game and with themselves as users of technology.   I think this relates to the Math confidence piece Christopher brought up in the news article he posted in announcements this week, as well.  I wanted to give the girls just as much opportunity to problem solve, get “mathy”, and create with this challenge as the boys, and I believe my initial grouping based on “fairness” was actually about to work against that.  Therefore, I revamped my entire crew list to reflect this research-enhanced PK and will hopefully provide an equally fun and fulfilling learning experience for both boys and girls.  If I had actively been using a framework guide for TPCK such as the one provided above, I wonder if I would have tweaked the memory of that research before I started the planning, rather than having it come up as a sort of pedagogically sound coincidence?  It certainly would have saved me time!

References

Harris, J., Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2009). Teachers’ Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge and Learning Activity Types. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 41(4), 393–416. Retrieved from ERIC database. (EJ844273)

Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. The Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054. Retrieved from http://one2oneheights.pbworks.com/f/MISHRA_PUNYA.pdf

Technology in the Elementary Class: Video Case 5 and 8

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

  1. The why and how technology is used (SAMR can guide this);
  2. 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,
  3. the limited amount of time in the face of the quantity of learning objectives teachers are expected to guide students through within a year.
SAMR EdTech InfoGraphic

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… Continue reading →

Technology use in the classroom

 

  • What is a good use of digital technology in the math and science classroom?
    • This is an excellent question and probably one of the main reasons that I chose to take this course. I struggle with authentically integrating technology into my grade 7 math and science classroom. In the past, I have used iPads extensively in my primary classrooms. We used the iPad to find math in the environment. If we were learning about 2D or 3D shapes (angles, arrays, etc.), the students would go around and take pictures of actual items. They would then create a pic collage (or other visual) with labels. However, now that I am teaching grade 7, I find it more difficult to integrate technology into my math and science lessons. Part of this is because we have very little technology available to us (one laptop cart to share between 10 grade 7 classes). The best ways that I have found to use technology is to show videos of the concepts that I am teaching for my visual learners (this works great for both math and science). We also create videos to help explain our understanding to others. I prefer for my students to work in partners or small groups that are randomly chosen. This way they are engaging and conversing while using technology. This provides the students opportunities to learn from each other. Another way to integrate technology is to allow students to further explore topics that they find particularly interesting. They can do this with other students who have the same interest.
    • In my previous school, we followed the SAMR model (substitution, augmentation, modification and redefinition). This was a good model and our goal was always to aim for modification and redefinition. The first two stages enhance the learning, but the last two transform it.
    • Technology provides students with the opportunity to converse and engage in conversations with other classes, as well as experts in a particular field. We have a class Twitter account that has been a great way for us to see how other students are learning different concepts and we are able to tweet out questions that we may have.
  • What would such a learning experience and environment look like?
    • This type of environment would have the students working in small groups at a table with a variety of device (tablets, laptops, etc.). The students would be able to move around the classroom (and possibly school) freely to explore their environment. Students would have choice in what they are learning based on their interests and knowledge.
  • What would be some characteristics of what it is and what it isn’t?
    • Technology should not be a replacement tool for paper and pencil/pen activities. It should be used to extend and further the learning process in the classroom. It should be a way for students to explore a concept in a way that fits their learning style and interests.
  • How might a learning experience with technology address a conceptual challenge, such as the one you researched in the last lesson?
    • Technology can help address conceptual challenge through the use of videos so that students can see the process. It can also be a way for students to show their thinking to their peers and teachers and open up a discussion. So much learning happens in the classroom when students are given time to explore and converse with their peers. Students can research up to date articles on specific topics and this is more easily acquired with technology.
  • Is this a vision or is it possible in real classrooms?
    • I think that many classrooms are well setup up with technology and many have flexible seating and open concept floor plans with lots of learning stations. However, some classrooms still lack the proper funding to provide up to date technology for all students.
  • What makes this vision a challenge to implement and what might be needed to actualize it?
    • The challenges that arise are funding, professional development and teacher interest and passion in regards to technology use. Some teachers have access to technology, but because of a lack of training or a fear, they do not implement it into the classroom. In order for teachers to feel comfortable, the need to be given access to technology and time to learn and feel confident using it with their students. Other classrooms have very little technology, but they have teachers that are passionate about integrating it.