Some pretty interesting topics this week. I found that the models for integrating learning into teaching were pretty useful to see. Often there’s not a lot of frameworks for using technology in the classroom.
I think that my favorite approach out of the three presented in class was the SAMR model. I think it provides a good source of ideas for how an educator can use technology in different ways in the classroom. The model leans towards technological integration being inherently better which is a bit of a problem. The idea that “transform” can be for better or worse is important, but when the other category is “enhance” it becomes fairly clear that its meant to be positive. There’s also the issue with visuals depicting the stages of substitution, augmentation, modification, and redefinition as a linear process where redefinition is something to be worked towards through the other stages. In my opinion this framing is something that can encourage teachers to rush to integrate technology for the sake of being seen as innovative or relatable to students. Approaches like this often heavily miss the mark as technology isn’t being applied properly to get to a main point.
A lot of the visuals for SAMR seem to reflect this idea. Such as the one in class where the types of integration are seen as increasingly more meaningful (going from standing on the beach wondering about what’s inside the ocean to being in a submarine immersed in the ocean). This frames technology as something that’s required to reach deeper levels of content understanding, when it could equally hinder understanding. I think its also unfortunate to frame it as a deeper understanding rather than a different understanding. I don’t think depicting a snorkel versus a submarine is helpful because they’re both attempts to do the same thing (the more technologically advanced version being significantly better). The integration techniques that are in the “transformation” category shouldn’t really be seen as deeper understanding, but instead different understandings. These different understandings can absolutely be more meaningful and deeper for students, but the whole point is that they’re exploring different approaches unavailable through traditional means. I think teachers trying to use technology to facilitate deeper understandings of the same topics doesn’t really work, the key idea is to pivot and change what directions the class is capable of going in.
That example is just with the diagram used in class, but a lot of the graphics online fall into similar issues. The most common representation I can see is a stacked layout where the categories are arranged almost like a hierarchical pyramid or stairs. Substitution and modification are at the bottom and lead upwards to augmentation and redefinition. I really don’t like these graphics either. It seems like they’re trying to present redefinition as something to work towards in the same way free inquiry is an end goal to inquiry approaches. I think this misses the mark in a lot of different ways. These approaches are separate tools from one another. I don’t think bad things would happen if a teacher was able to redefine a unit using technology and students hadn’t seen an example of substitution, modification, or augmentation yet. I also don’t think educators need to fully understand something like modification in order to explore new tasks through redefinition. The only thing that really links these groups is how involved and integral technology is to the lesson or concept. If you frame them as a sequence to go through SMAR just becomes a guide on how to reach redefining content using technology or how to integrate technology more. I don’t like this approach because it hinders teachers from seeing the different options for integrating technology in meaningful ways. All the tools provided by SMAR are really good and can be integrated into classrooms to allow tech to assist to education. Unfortunately, the current idea around SMAR seem too overzealous to integrate technology for the sake of integrating technology. Education needs to come first, technology needs to facilitate it. If you sacrifice education for the point of technological integration, then the technology is only serving to create the illusion of innovation.
This balancing act is why I like the Constructive Alignment as a model of tech integration. Remaining focused on designing for learning is critical and learning goals should always be kept in mind. This approach is good because it will cause educators to think along a framework of how they can use technology to reach a learning goal, rather than how they can integrate technology in a more general sense. My main issues with the constructive alignment and TPACK framework is that they’re very theoretical. They’re great examples of solid theory, but trying to think of ways that they can be applied is difficult. I find that the TPACK framework makes this substantially more challenging. TPACK seems to focus more on the different aspects of teaching and how they should be brought to together for effective teaching. It doesn’t really say what those Venn-diagram overlaps look like though or how this crossing over can be done in a traditional classroom. I think these models work well in conjunction with SMAR and can be used to ensure that the frameworks balance each other out.
I liked the idea of EdCamps a lot and thought that they were a great way of creating discussion between people. I think that there can be some issues with the size of the groups doing them, but it seemed to still work well with a smaller group of people. One of my main issues was feeling stuck in a group. I didn’t want to just randomly get up and leave when someone was talking or had just finished saying something. I think a bigger group could help with this, but it could make it a bit more difficult to let everyone be heard. Larger topics breaking up into smaller groups discussing them or discussing subtopics could help remedy that. I’m probably just overthinking it too, seems more like a social-anxiety issue than an EdCamp issue.
