Reflection: Revolution/Evolution/Status Quo (Online activity 1.2)

Guiding Question: Does the adoption of digital technologies imply a modification of your teaching (i.e. evolution), extreme change in your teaching (revolution) or more of what you already do (status quo)?

Reflection

The adoption of digital technologies implies a modification to my teaching (evolution). Technology does not change the end result or goal of what I teach; but rather enhances it and enables myself and my learners to be more efficient, engaged and productive. It enables me to work at any time and place; as well as being able to access the necessary materials I need to plan lessons and prepare lesson content at the click of a button. For my students it allows them to learn in ways other than from the teacher; and produce evidence of their learning using a range of media and creative tools, while giving them a platform to share and learn from others - expanding their audience.

The way in which I integrate technology into my classroom depends on the learning purpose and outcomes I have set for my students. Various examples of this can relate clearly to Puentedura’s (2006) Substitution, Augmentation, Modification, and Redefinition (SAMR) model. For example, at times my students use technology merely as a substitution instead of completing a worksheet or writing in their books. They may use it as a tool to augment their publishing and presentation skills to present a piece of writing with the addition of using different font, colour or image options. My learners may choose to modify the task by creating an animation or slide presentation using google slides to present their writing. The ability to broaden their audience and receive praise and feedback is redefined when learners are able to share their learning/creations with the world using blogger. Hamilton et al. (2016) describe the SAMR model as not being well researched with the risk of misleading or confusing educators. They recommend that this model is better used with context and learning outcomes in mind. They state that rather than viewing it as hierarchical, use it as a guide to suit the particular learning context and outcomes.

In conclusion, the addition of technology to my classroom environment is evolutionary as it enables me to modify how I access my own and students' work, the tasks/content I prepare, and broadens the tools available to meet learning outcomes. I used to view the SAMR model as a hierarchy, thinking that maybe I’m not always using technology to its fullest potential; but after reading Hamilton et al. (2016) critique, I’ve realised it’s acceptable to use technology any way that supports the learning outcomes of my students.

Learning outcome link:

This reflection links to learning outcome 1: Reflect on the central concepts, theories, and current areas of debate in the study of teaching with digital technologies; as it has helped to change my understanding of the SAMR model. It also links to learning outcome 2: Analyse and critique the roles and responsibilities of an educator in digitally-enhanced formal and informal learning situations; because it has informed my thinking and understanding about my role as a primary school teacher in a digitally enhanced learning environment. I no longer feel that I am using technology insufficiently if my students use technology as a substitution depending on the learning outcome. 

References:


Hamilton, E., Rosenberg, J., & Akcaoglu, M. (2016). The Substitution augmentation modification redefinition (SAMR) model: A critical review and suggestions for its use. TechTrends, 60(5), 433-441. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-016-0091-y

Puentedura, R. (2006). Transformation, technology, and education. Hippasus. http://hippasus.com/resources/tte/

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Reflection: What do these models say about effective digital teaching? (Online activity 2.3)

Image
Guiding Question: What do these models say about effective digital teaching in a blended learning environment? TPACK The TPACK framework is a digital teaching model designed to highlight the important interwoven knowledge types that competent teachers should have. These knowledge types include pedagogical knowledge , content knowledge  and technology knowledge . This model identifies the important interwoven relationship between these knowledge types and how they influence each other with the ultimate goal of effective digital teaching.  Koehler et al. (2013) states that a teacher's lack of one of these knowledge types could be detrimental to the educational achievement of their learners e.g. with a lack of content knowledge, learners could be at risk of developing misconceptions or incorrect ideals from their teachers; with a lack of pedagogical knowledge, teachers may be unaware of how their students learn best or use inadequate teaching strategies - hindering the capabi...
Read more

Digital Affordance Critique (Online Activity 8)

Article Critique ( Online Activity 8 ) Seven Affordances of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning: How to support Collaborative Learning? How Can Technology Help? by Jeong & Hmelo-Silver (2016) When selecting an article to critique from the module 3 readings I decided to read a few to help me to gain a better understanding of what is meant by digital affordances and decide which reading would best compliment teaching in a blended learning environment. I decided to choose Jeong & Hmelo-Silver's (2016) article because it compared two key areas of interest to me being collaborative learning and how digital affordances can support this. It is also quite a recent article with relevant ideas.  I feel my critique was objective and fair because I had enough prior knowledge/experience with collaborative learning to make fair judgements. The background reading I had completed in regards to digital affordances also assisted me with understanding certa...
Read more