SAMR – Bobbi's Blog

Activity 2- Selecting Promising Ideas

The Empathy and Design stage did not create as much anxiety as this stage to narrow my ideas. I know the choice of the right tool is vital to the learning outcome and impact on the students. While reading about the frameworks to help select a digital resource, I appreciate different elements of TPACK and SAMR in various capacities of my work — where classroom dynamics, specific content, and tools used to enhance or redefine learning is more in play. For this project, the aim is to provide a resource that helps to present and educate about academic integrity.

In my current scenario for this project, I am looking at the framework of Bates’ (2015) SECTIONS to guide my process in determining my best-fit digital tool. The SECTIONS (Bates, 2015) framework provides key questions to consider when choosing and designing a digital resource. The structure helps to ensure all consideration of all aspects when deciding on the digital tool. Hughes, Thomas, & Scharber (2006) RAT framework is a check in the purpose of the technology implementation — to replace, amplify or transform. RAT (Hughes, Thomas, & Scharber, 2006) creates dimensions for the degree of use of the technology is used. This affirms the purpose, and in the design process keeps the aim in sight.

What are the affordances and limitations of the framework?

Affordances

- Logical. The framework walks you through reasonable questions to consider, helping you to work in perspectives that ensure that you are looking beyond my viewpoint and considering many aspects of my users. It is a practical look and analysis that will help justify the decision for the technology tool.
- K-12 context. Bates’ framework (2015) is applied directly to my context of K-12 education, specifically grade 9-12 students.
- Dual settings. The framework allows for the consideration of the tool in a classroom setting and an online.
- Inclusive. Considerations for ensuring the needs of all students are met with the tool that is chosen.

Limitations

- A detailed perspective. The many direct questions ensure the designer considers the finer points, however, it may cloud or hinder the bigger picture.
- Assumptions. The questions have an assumption that there is a level of comfort or understanding of technological pedagogy/practice for the teacher to be successful or be able to consider and answer the guiding questions.

How well does the framework align with your existing educational and pedagogical practices?

- For my purpose of this project, the SECTIONS framework allows for a straightforward and clear process for thinking and choosing my digital tool. I appreciate the TPACK (Koehler, Mishra & Cain, 2013) and SAMR (Puentedura, 2013) framework as the models seek to enhance student learning and to create shifts in instruction to impact learning. For this circumstance, the purpose of this resource is not better to integrate technology to transform a lesson or specific target — not yet, anyway. This is where the RAT framework has kept me in check to understand that I am using technology to amplify the student learning for understanding and efficiency of the school’s academic integrity policy.

How did the application of the framework impact your decision-making process?

- The application for the framework in my decision-making process to help work through assumptions and ensure that I am looking at all possibilities. The practicality helps me with the bigger picture to use a platform that people can easily access and willingly access as programs at our school.
- The framework is reminding me to keep it simple and to look at the learning targets and how to maximize learning within the realm I am capable of creating that is accessible to everyone.
- I have decided to use the Google Sites, in conjunction with Google Forms and Google Classroom. I haven’t decided which program I will be using yet for audio and visual. Depending on my better dabbling in Camtasia and Snagit or to keep it simple with Screencastomatic.

Which components of the framework did you find most valuable to your decision-making process? Why?

- The components of the framework that I found the most valuable are the guiding questions that are applied at the end of each element. The Students component is helpful to look past biases and assumptions. Also, the Teaching/Media Selection to provide tips and considerations when creating an effective digital resource.

References

Bates, A. W. (2015). Chapter 8. In Teaching in a digital age: Guidelines for designing teaching and learning. Vancouver BC: Tony Bates Associates Ltd.

Hughes, J., Thomas, R., & Scharber, C. (2006, March). Assessing technology integration: The RAT–replacement, amplification, and transformation-framework. In Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 1616-1620). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).

Koehler M. J., Mishra P., & Cain, W. (2013). What Is technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK)? Journal Of Education, 193(3), 13-19.

Puentedura, R. R. (2013, May 29). SAMR: Moving from enhancement to transformation [Blog post]. Retrieved from http://www.hippasus.com/rrpweblog/archives/000095.html

Engagement = Learning

Does engagement actually equal learning?

While perusing Flipboard , an article called “How to Determine if Student Engagement is Leading to Learning” caught my interest. Its main focus is how it is common to hear educators discuss the use of technology in both physical and virtual classrooms to engage students. The effectiveness of technology to increase learning is drawn from the 21^stcentury student context. Put some technology in front of a student and they are sure to learn, right? After all, they love technology.

“In education, student engagement refers to the degree of attention, curiosity, interest, optimism, and passion that students show when they are learning or being taught, which extends to the level of motivation they have to learn and progress in their education.”

(The Glossary of Education Reform, 2014, Student Engagement)

Students can be engaged in a class – collaboration, creativity, and fun can all be evident – but how can you tell if learning is actually occurring? Where is the evidence? Students “can walk away from a lesson or activity having been very engaged but with very little in the form of new knowledge construction, conceptual mastery, or evidence of applied skills” (Sheninger, as cited in Mindshift, 2016).

It is critical that educators do not just use technology as a means of getting students to have more fun or think more positively about a lesson without designing the use of the technology to also enhance the learning process. Visible evidence is needed in order to justify the use of technology in an academic setting – both physical and virtual.

Using an instructional design model that is based on the integration of technology is one way to help ensure that the technology being implemented both engages the students, but also helps them to take away new knowledge and skills. One such model that is currently being advocated for in the 21^stcentury teaching and learning context is SAMR (Puentedura, 2006). This model provides four methods of incorporating technology into the design of a program. Each method is connected to an aspect of Bloom’s technology and moves from lower to higher order thinking. It is at the two higher levels that meaningful learning takes place, and being able to recognize these levels in one’s own design process is important.

So to correct my title…it should read:

Learning = Engagement + Design (meaningful technology integration)

References
The Glossary of Education Reform. (2014). Student engagement. Retrieved from https://edglossary.org/student-engagement/

Mindshift. (2016). How to determine if student engagement is leading to learning. Retrieved from https://ww2.kqed.org/mindshift/2016/01/14/how-to-determine-if-student-engagement-is-leading-to-learning/

Puentedura, R. (2006). A model for technology and transformation [pdf]. Retrieved from https://hippasus.com/resources/sweden2010/SAMR_TPCK_IntroToAdvancedPractice.pdf

Fancy New Tools

Edutopia’s article, “Shaping Tech for the Classroom”, took me on a tangent. I was reading the article and connecting it to topics I have already looked into past and present– specifically the use of the SAMR model to aid in using technology more effectively in a classroom…and I am ready to admit that I fall under the “doing old things in new ways” category, but most of my colleagues would admit to this, too. This island we inhabit is full and we all help each other to find fancy new tools where we move our content from one place to another and get our students to move their conversations from one space to another. I am hereby declaring that I am ready to learn how to make technology work for me and to work for the students – to have it be a mechanism through which effective learning can take place.

This line of thought brought me to the idea of a Learning Management System (LMS). Essentially, an LMS is used to manage, track, and deliver courses and training programs in both the education and business world. The eLearning Industry points out that e-Learning is a 50 billion dollar industry and that number could double within a year. They also project that by the year 2019, about half of all college classes in the states will be eLearning based. Theses numbers show that there are systematic changes taking place in education in order to contend with a shifting 21^stcentury economy and culture. Many schools have already made the move to an LMS…but, I wonder, is this really the direction schools should be taking? (if you are interested, here is an infographic that shows the top 20 LMS software)

As I was looking at some of the different LMS platforms I started to wonder about the process of choosing one. How does an institution decide on which platform to use? I can see cost being a major issue…but what else? Another infographic highlights and expands on more variables that would come into play: ease of use, customizations, support available, and suitability for the environment. There are also open source LMS’ that are free of cost. Moodle–it is one of the most widely used LMS’ on the free market.

Moodle has lots of bells and whistles and to the naked eye it looks like a fancy tool that could help create an effective learning environment.

But, there is something missing here…and that is the most critical
aspect of all: learning.

Is an LMS the BEST way that we can help someone learn?

In the performance management sector, there must be a value delivered, and the same should go for education. An LMS is just one system of learning…we need to know it is going to provide value, rather than buy it and then just hope it provides value.

An LMS can house all of the content of a program, people tend to like them once they learn the ins and outs, and they help to brand an organization. However, just because we like what they can do, does not get us off the hook for finding out if it is going to help someone learn. Before integrating any technology an analysis on the process of learning, the people, the environment, and the content to be delivered needs to take place. If after the analysis it is decided that an LMS will serve the needs of the context and provide value, fantastic. I think that organizations can get fooled into thinking that they can shape their context around an LMS, but in reality, this just usually isn’t the case.

This also brings me around to the question of should an LMS be used at all? Do they help or hinder the learning environment?
Let’s think about games for a moment. A game without rules would equal chaos, a game with rules gives structure and goals, but a game with too many rules is rigid and can decrease creativity. We need to be careful that the technology we are implementing at a system level is not killing students curiosity and their ability to interact with the broader online community. The technology needs to serve a need and not the other way around. A quick example of this is how the US used technology to try and solve the issue of writing in space by creating a million-dollar pen, whereas the Russians just used a pencil. I think you get my point.

Yes, there is a need for a systematic shift to take place in education….but is using an LMS helping to support that shift?

I am not sure – but, I would like to make a suggestion:

That we shift the acronym from LMS to SML. That we see the introduction of technology into education as systems to manage the learning that is happening… to manage how it is developed… to manage how it is delivered. An LMS is designed to create a structured approach, it establishes a template. The problem with this is that “my” structure might not match “your” structure or someone else’s structure because not everyone teaches or learns the same way. Inherent in the education system is the idea of the variety of teaching and learning practices, but an LMS seeks to add consistency to that practice. This is not always a negative – consistency is needed in an educational context in areas such as assessment. However, you don’t want every course looking relatively the same. 21st-century learning is about creating deliverables that are not only relevant and engaging for today’s student population, but also allow them to explore, think, and create. The template structure that an LMS provides does not seem like the most effective tool to provide a rich and flexible learning context because it is what is put into it, to what you get out of it.

I am learning that an LMS or a DLE, digital learning environment, is what is put into it. The framework is important but the engagement is more important. The community needs to be established in your classroom so that students feel connected and buy-in to their learning environment. LMS holds a sense of consistency for the institution but for a classroom … it may need a blend of systems.