So the other day a commentator asked about how free digital class response systems such as Plickers, Socrative, or even Kahoot (an awesome Japanese gameshow version of Socrative) are better than a piece of card-stock in a sheet protector with a whiteboard marker.
I think that's a super valuable question. "What is this tech bringing to my classroom?" Sometimes the answer is "very little." Sometimes the answer is: "something that I couldn't have even imagined doing before."
These questions and many more have been addressed by Dr. Ruben Puentedura, in a model he calls the SAMR model. Here are a few places you can read about SAMR: A blog post about SAMR; Dr. Puentedrua's own blog, or a simple 120 second YouTube video explaining the basics. Essentially the answers to the question "what is this bringing to my classroom?" can be answered in a continuum.
Substitution- Old tech is replaced by new tech, same task is performed with no benefit.
Augmentation- New tech does old job, but does it faster, better, or more efficient.
Modification- Technology allows for more interactive tasks and assignments. (ex: kids commenting on a google doc)
Redefinition- A new and previously unimaginable task through the use of new technology
 |
| The SAMR model (http://jennyluca.wikispaces.com/TPACK+and+SAMR) |
The contributor was asking how these response systems improved the whiteboard response system he uses, I've used, and my high school Chemistry teacher used. How are clickers a step up from the slate boards my grandmother used while teaching in a one-room schoolhouse in the 1940s?
The new tech does the exact same old job, but does it faster, with more color, and compiles the data more efficiently. I've only augmented the pedagogy of the past, not redefined it. So the guy had a point; this new technology isn't earth shattering. The practice isn't even new. I'd classify this technology as "augmentation" on the SAMR continuum. It is approaching "modification" depending on how I use it. If I put the bar graph up on the board so students get immediate feedback and see how they stack up to their peers, then I believe I have achieved modification. That pedagogy, however may not be best practice... all the time.
Every time I implement a new technology into my fourth grade classroom I ask myself how the technology is going to support the learning objective. Ultimately, I believe that technology should enhance learning, and not get in the way. Is this technology helping me be more efficient (Augmentation), or is it helping give the task context that would not have been available without the technology (Modification and approaching Redefinition)
But sometimes it gets in the way.
Like last week, I was trying to have kids annotate PDFs instead of hard copies of a graphic organizer using a Chrome Web Store App called PDFzen. (technology objective: learn how to use a PDF annotating software) Instead of giving kids the 35 minutes they had to do a pre-write activity (writing objective: do a pre-write), they only got about 10 minutes. The other 25 minutes were dedicated to me modeling how to use the software, and then dealing with technical issues as they tried to annotate their own document. Using the technology took away from the writing objective of that lesson.
But it wasn't a waste of time.
Teaching them to use the software was inconvenient, the first time. After the first time, most of them get it, and the technology no longer gets in the way. The technology can now serve the pedagogy. Now that the kids know how to use the software, I can use it for the rest of the year.
Sometimes tech gets in the way of the lesson objective. But if I use the tech in the future, regularly, and repeatedly, the benefit of the technology can eventually overcome that initial cost. Do we as teachers forget about that initial cost? Are we ever frightened away from using technology in the classroom because it gets in the way the first time?
As a manager of educational technology for a private school, I was tasked with selecting a student response system to complement our iPad initiative. I wanted something that offered more than an automated card system. I wanted something that gave me awesome displays of comprehension analytics... stuff that makes "data" into obvious displays. I wanted a video game HUD as a teacher.
ReplyDeleteI found that in ExitTicket. I recommended them to my school then as I do now that I'm a part of their team. I think it's critical not to automate our practices as much as find ways to analyze and improve them. Part of my job now is to spread teaching styles using micro formative assessments to shorten the feedback loop for students. It's so much fun to see its effects.