SAMR Overview
Hilton (2016) provided a meaning of SAMR as to "...facilitate the aquisition of proficiency in modern consumer technologies and software for both staff and students with the hope of promoting 21st century skills."
SAMR provides a framework for teachers so that they can begin to unpack technology-based tools which may be integrated into a specific lesson or classroom environment. The hierarchal formation of this framework also allows the teacher to reflect and determine the impact it may have on instruction and student learning outcomes. The ultimate goal is for teachers to work through the progression so that the use of technology is transformational to the practice taking place. This can be seen in Figure 1 below, where the progression is grouped into two categories, Enhancement and Transformation.
As mentioned, the progression should be a reflective model that can be used by teachers to reflect on the purpose and outcomes of using new technology and to also decide if it serves an effective purpose. Each step of this model creates opportunity for reflection and questioning of one's practice. Examples of the types of questions teachers may ask themselves are aligned with each step of the progression.
Enhancement by:
TPAC Overview
The TPACK model of technology integration consists of three types of knowledge: Technological, Pedagogical and Content-based knowledge. More importantly it relfects the level of each and how they merge to impact student outcomes and learning environments.
The TPACK model of technology also generates internal questions which educators may relfect upon.
Technological Knowledge - how well do we know how to use emerging technology?
Pedagogical Knowledge - how well do we understand and use general teaching theories/methods?
Content Knowledge - how well do we know the content of a specific subject areas?
The TPACK model acknowledges that all three areas are important and need to be considered when looking at effective learning environements. It also suggests that teachers must have a certain level of knowledge regarding all three, in order to adjust to emerging technology.
Mishra & Koehler (2006) demonstrated that given the opportunity to interact with the design of educational technology, teachers demonstrated growth in connecting interactions among content, pedagogy, and technology. They also suggest that the TPACK model develops teacher knowledge, as well as learning environments. This is struck me as attractive because the outcome of a transformed learning environemnt, from a school leader perspective, is an active change I would want to achieve.
On the other hand, the TPACK model requires full emersion and working knowledge of technology to go alongside the content and pedagogical knowledge required in most traditional educational settings. This model does have limitations, from my perspective, regarding the realities of the international school setting, staffing turnover and resources. The requirement of training all staff to use technology in all areas of their teaching, creating technology positions within the school to support the staff and reimplementing this model through various staff turnover cycles is something I would consider. The realities of implementing the TPACK model successfuly at my school, given the aformentioned concerns, may constantly present barriers which may be hard to overcome and lessen its effectiveness.
Hilton (2016) concluded, that as it pertains to technology's place in the classroom, schools need to approach technology in a systematic and reflective way. I feel that the simplicity of this idea aligns with my personal ideas concerning technology. As such, I believe the SMAR model most resonates with my goals as school leader and how I would plan to implement technology within my school effectively.
While I like the SMAR model in theory, I did wonder if teachers truly reflect on this model and use it as tool where the end goal is always transformation. Hilton (2016) furthered my reservations with the model when observing that teachers in his study used random and varied levels of SMAR, as opposed to consistently using it to move towards the more complex levels of Modification and Redefinition. The social studies teachers in this study often chose to use technology to substitute prior resources and not enhance teacher practice and learning experiences.
As a school leader, I feel that this issue can be overcome through sharing of best practice, peer coaching and the creation of professional learning communities. These types of supports and systems already exist for various initiatives and would be easy to adapt for SMAR. I also think the model promotes best practice, as to what our teachers should consider and aim to achieve when implementing new technology.
The SMAR model makes me consider how I try to instill qualities of transformational leadership within my own practice and how I may support transformational change, concerning technology's place in my school.
Hilton (2016) provided a meaning of SAMR as to "...facilitate the aquisition of proficiency in modern consumer technologies and software for both staff and students with the hope of promoting 21st century skills."
SAMR provides a framework for teachers so that they can begin to unpack technology-based tools which may be integrated into a specific lesson or classroom environment. The hierarchal formation of this framework also allows the teacher to reflect and determine the impact it may have on instruction and student learning outcomes. The ultimate goal is for teachers to work through the progression so that the use of technology is transformational to the practice taking place. This can be seen in Figure 1 below, where the progression is grouped into two categories, Enhancement and Transformation.
Figure 1. Progressive SAMR Model
Figure 1. SAMR model. Source: Hilton 2016
As mentioned, the progression should be a reflective model that can be used by teachers to reflect on the purpose and outcomes of using new technology and to also decide if it serves an effective purpose. Each step of this model creates opportunity for reflection and questioning of one's practice. Examples of the types of questions teachers may ask themselves are aligned with each step of the progression.
Enhancement by:
- Substitution - What will the teacher gain by replacing old method with new technology?
- Augmentation - How does new technology improve the teacher's original lesson design?
Transformation by:
- Modification - Is the task modification better than the original design of the teacher?
- Redefinition - How is the new task made possible by the implemention of new technology?
TPAC Overview
The TPACK model of technology integration consists of three types of knowledge: Technological, Pedagogical and Content-based knowledge. More importantly it relfects the level of each and how they merge to impact student outcomes and learning environments.
The TPACK model of technology also generates internal questions which educators may relfect upon.
Technological Knowledge - how well do we know how to use emerging technology?
Pedagogical Knowledge - how well do we understand and use general teaching theories/methods?
Content Knowledge - how well do we know the content of a specific subject areas?
The TPACK model acknowledges that all three areas are important and need to be considered when looking at effective learning environements. It also suggests that teachers must have a certain level of knowledge regarding all three, in order to adjust to emerging technology.
Personal Connections
Mishra & Koehler (2006) demonstrated that given the opportunity to interact with the design of educational technology, teachers demonstrated growth in connecting interactions among content, pedagogy, and technology. They also suggest that the TPACK model develops teacher knowledge, as well as learning environments. This is struck me as attractive because the outcome of a transformed learning environemnt, from a school leader perspective, is an active change I would want to achieve.
On the other hand, the TPACK model requires full emersion and working knowledge of technology to go alongside the content and pedagogical knowledge required in most traditional educational settings. This model does have limitations, from my perspective, regarding the realities of the international school setting, staffing turnover and resources. The requirement of training all staff to use technology in all areas of their teaching, creating technology positions within the school to support the staff and reimplementing this model through various staff turnover cycles is something I would consider. The realities of implementing the TPACK model successfuly at my school, given the aformentioned concerns, may constantly present barriers which may be hard to overcome and lessen its effectiveness.
Hilton (2016) concluded, that as it pertains to technology's place in the classroom, schools need to approach technology in a systematic and reflective way. I feel that the simplicity of this idea aligns with my personal ideas concerning technology. As such, I believe the SMAR model most resonates with my goals as school leader and how I would plan to implement technology within my school effectively.
While I like the SMAR model in theory, I did wonder if teachers truly reflect on this model and use it as tool where the end goal is always transformation. Hilton (2016) furthered my reservations with the model when observing that teachers in his study used random and varied levels of SMAR, as opposed to consistently using it to move towards the more complex levels of Modification and Redefinition. The social studies teachers in this study often chose to use technology to substitute prior resources and not enhance teacher practice and learning experiences.
As a school leader, I feel that this issue can be overcome through sharing of best practice, peer coaching and the creation of professional learning communities. These types of supports and systems already exist for various initiatives and would be easy to adapt for SMAR. I also think the model promotes best practice, as to what our teachers should consider and aim to achieve when implementing new technology.
The SMAR model makes me consider how I try to instill qualities of transformational leadership within my own practice and how I may support transformational change, concerning technology's place in my school.
Are there links to be made when considering school transformation, active agents of change and technology integration in our international school settings?
References
Hilton, J. T. (2016). A case study of the application of SAMR and TPACK for reflection on technology integration into two social studies classrooms. Social Studies, 107(2), 68–73.
References
Hilton, J. T. (2016). A case study of the application of SAMR and TPACK for reflection on technology integration into two social studies classrooms. Social Studies, 107(2), 68–73.
Mishra, P. & Koehler, M. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record. 108(6), 1017-1054.
Comments
Post a Comment