From Daunting and Unnerving to Comfortable and Boundary Pushing: Educational Technology Inclusion Models

My EdTech Origin Story

I was part of the team leading the roll out of a 1:1 iPad program a decade ago at a Chicago private high school. Initially, the thought integrating technology into daily classes with freshman and sophomore students was daunting and at times unnerving; there were so many unknowns. During this process, the SAMR model was very popular among faculty and helped many, like myself, find a sense of comfort. This model acted as a simple guide for thinking about ways to incorporate technology where previously very little had been available in the classroom. Additionally, as teachers became more comfortable with the ideas of technology incorporation we introduced the TPACK model. This model, while visually more complex, was well received by many because it highlights both content knowledge and pedagogical knowledge. This allowed everyone to realize they had a place from which to start and we were not asking them to completely redesign their courses, or change everything about the way they teach. The SAMR framework and growth mindset perfectly aligned with the idea of not being able to do something 'yet'. All lessons are not going to be redefined right away (or maybe ever) Both SAMR and growth mindset focus on the ability to reach the next skill, step, or level. 

Image Credit: Wikimedia Commons

Image Credit: Wikimedia Commons

Other technology inclusion models and frameworks exist that expand on ideas present in SAMR and TPACK such as the Technology Integration Matrix and the Triple E framework. 

I think each model and framework offers a slightly different lens through which to reflect on and evaluate technology inclusion in the classroom. After a decade, I still find myself drawn to the simplicity of the SAMR model. Bloom's Taxonomy received a large amount of focus during my education classes in college. As we transitioned to 1:1 technology a colleague shared an image similar to that below, where Bloom's Taxonomy and the SAMR model are lined up with suggestions of apps and app types.
This was a great resource for beginning to plan and reflect on using technology. 

Image Credit: Making Things Visible with Technology
https://www.mtvt.org/resources/blooms-digital-taxonomy/ 

SAMR In Depth

As shown above, the SAMR Model has two large super-sections broken into four main segments. These segments look in a comparative way at a lesson that would have been delivered pre-technology, to a lesson being delivered with technology. 

Enhancement - lessons that are fall under enhancement look and feel very similar to the comparable lesson done before technology. The learning goals, outcomes, and students products are largely unchanged. 

Substitution - a technology tool is acting as a direct substitute for something done before. This substitution presents no increased functionality or collaboration. 

Aumentation - a technology tool is acting as a substitute for something done before, except there is a functional improvement to the lesson due to the technology. 

Transformation - the use of technology is allowing for lessons that could not have been delivered before. The learning goals remain largely the same but outcomes and students products can be noticeably different. 

Modification - technology tool(s) allow for a lesson's tasks to be changed in such a way that the outcomes and product rely on the technology.

Redefinition - technology tool(s) allows for a lesson to be completed that could not have been completed without that tool. 

The article from University of Calgary adds some more depth on SAMR while pointing out strengths and challenges when approaching lesson design with this model. 

SAMR - Technology in My Classroom: Then, Now, and the Future

Then

The first year using iPads was before students had numerous ways around policies and procedures to help them stay on task. I was actively working towards having students using technology almost everyday. Many times a lesson would simply be substituted (a worksheet given digitally) or augmented (worksheets with embedded reference links). However, I tried to make sure I had one lesson per quarter that reached modification or redefinition. I was the first year and I was excited to be using the technology and learning what the devices could do academically along with the students. I quickly allowed students to take digital notes, if they chose. I started to see a significant redesign of students notebooks as they would write or type notes but they could also embed images that I projected. For a few years, one of the biology texts we used did not come with a glossary or specifically identified vocabulary per section. So we collaborated on a large scale Google Doc and created a glossary which served as introduction to lectures but also a fantastic review resource for the students. 

Now

So, after a decade of iPads in the classroom, where do I find myself most frequently? In the same spot as year one, substitution and augmentation. A lot has changed in the ensuing years, students have become accustom to the devices, more and more distractions exist on the devices (more students have downloaded games), and the technologies that helped keep students on task do not work as well because they have learned how to get around them. So where I had readily switched to allowing digital note taking, for the past year and a half, I have not allowed digital notes (except as an accommodation) and required a physical notebook. This has helped keep students less distracted by games or notifications, but I am not sure if the overall focus on the class has gone up as much as I had hoped. 

When we do worksheets they are still almost exclusively done digitally. There is the augmented benefit of it being harder to misplace the worksheet because it is on the iPad, but the worksheets themselves have largely reverted back to a simpler substitution. 

While most lessons are still substitution or augmentation, the number of days where modification is occurring has also increased. The school pays for a subscription to Gizmos which we use for their lab simulations and virtual lab activities. Without this technology tool some of these concepts cannot be looked at in the classroom beyond discussion due to a number of factors. In other cases, these Gizmos activities have replaced less engaging paper and pencil activities. The quality of data and speed at which these simulations occur far exceeds those of the preceding paper and pencil activities. 

In the Future

I want to continue pushing myself to find and design lessons that are transformed from the pre-technology versions. With that in mind, I do not plan on having every lesson modified or redesigned, there are some worksheets that are tried-and-true. When something continues to work well and supports student learning I am not going to replace it with technology just because. Gizmos will certainly be maintained.

I also need to look more at the other models such as Triple E Framework and Technology Integration Matrix. Reflecting on my practices with these will help me push my boundaries to get at a deeper and more intentioned place in lesson planning. Why is this technology being used? How is it actually supporting the desired outcomes. The questions are certainly to be thought of while using SAMR, but the focus on them in the other models is something I need again at this point. 

I am working on increasing student choice in assignment products. For example, in years past while reviewing lab safety students have created posters reinforcing some of the rules. These posters could use technology or not in their creation (substitution to augmentation) This year in addition to the more traditional posted I allowed students to create memes (modification - without the device and platforms memes originate on, this product would not be possible). For next year, I am considering allowing students to create an audio or video public service announcement (PSA) as another option to the meme or traditional poster. This type of choice in final product will be extended to other assignments as well which will elevate the lesson into the transformative area because technology is central in so many of the potential submission types. This increased choice is not just to use more technology, but to allow students to select a product that best aligns to their learning style, comfort level, and interests. 

SAMR does not demand redefinition for all lessons, but it does drive us teachers to look deeper at our practices and challenge us to not become stagnant in our pedagogy. A challenge that I will continue answering as best I can. 

“Do not confine your children to your own learning, for they were born in another time.” – Chinese Proverb