In course 1, I had the opportunity to look at various frameworks of technology integration in education and their commonalities and differences (here you can read my take on TPACK and SAMR). To recap, here are two images that highlight the key elements of both models:

 

The SAMR Model

By Lefflerd [CC BY-SA 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0)], from Wikimedia Commons

Tpack

By Llennon (https://www.tpack.org) [CC BY 3.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0)], via Wikimedia Commons

 

When I look at my own practice, I would say that it fits with both, the TPACK and the SAMR frameworks. Let me explain.

 

The What

When planning my units, first and foremost, I consider the enduring understandings that I want the students to have at the end of each learning cycle. In other words, I focus on the CK, or Content Knowledge, of the TPACK model. In my case, this is driven by the Statement of Inquiry and unpacked in what the students will know, what they will understand, and what they will be able to do at the end of the unit.

The How

Once the CK has been determined, we move on to decide how the students will achieve that. Here is where both the T and P of TPACK make an appearance in no particular order. Theoretically, the P (pedagogy) goes before T (technology), but sometimes those lines are blurred. Having worked extensively in a 1:1 programme and with a myriad of tech tools, my thinking on instructional strategies, scaffolds and differentiation is intimately tied with tools that will allow me to implement those effectively. Sometimes I make the conscious decision that not using a tech tool would be more appropriate, given the context, the students and the goals, and a no-tech approach might be best.

So, where does SAMR comes in?

Naturally, one would think that the SAMR model would be visible in the T part of the planning cycle. As I mentioned earlier, being a technology enthusiast and having worked in a 1:1 programme for almost a decade, has allowed me to experience firsthand how technology can be used to transform and enhance learning in ways that without technology would be very difficult to do or practically impossible. In this way, when thinking about what we want the students to learn, back to the CK of TPACK, we can also see how technology comes to modify and redefine learning from the top down.

Here are some examples of how I use one tool for different activities along the SAMR continuum:

Substitution: Recording research in a table on Evernote – writing a summary of text sources and recording citations.

Augmentation: Recording research in a notebook using Evernote Clipper – clipping YouTube videos, websites, articles and documents part of their research.

Modification: Co-constructing work with a peer by sharing a notebook on Evernote and also sharing it with the teacher. The work and the feedback flow can be done via written text, annotated documents or images, or audio clips, all of which can be embedded in or attached to the shared notes or notebooks. Co-construction and feedback can be synchronous or asynchronous.

Redefinition: Co-constructing a Traveling Tale with three other classrooms around the world, using a shared Evernote notebook to plan and share resources to create the story.

Technology integration is most definitely not about the tools themselves, but about the learning which can be facilitated by those tools.

Feature image by Wokandapix on Pixabay