Most educators are becoming familiar with the SAMR Model, a framework designed by Dr. Ruben Puentedura to “help educators infuse technology into teaching and learning” (Shrock). While there are four equally important aspects to the SAMR Model, this post is going to look at R = Redefinition.
What exactly is the “Redefinition” of the SAMR Model? And how can we implement it into our classrooms? Let’s take a look!
Drag your cursor to 1:46 to see these teachers practice redefinition:
How is this “Redefinition”? Ask yourself these questions:
Could the teachers have played back the golf ball bouncing in slow motion without the technology?
Could the teachers have watched the movement of the ball at varying speeds if this lesson had been taught without the technology?
Have they (or how could they) share this work and their findings with a larger audience? How could this work benefit others? …When unpacking science standards? …In other contexts?
This quarter in the Digital Education Leadership program at Seattle Pacific University I am working on creating an Action Plan to help address a particular challenge that may be preventing a school from realizing their ideal learning environment. In an earlier post, I share the obstacles a school is currently facing in the aftermath of a speedy 1-to-1 laptop rollout. As I formulate the action plan, I have sought feedback from my classmates and professors, working towards a document that can eventually be presented to the school. Part of that feedback took place in a Tuning Protocol, a reflective tool often used by educators seeking constructive criticism. This criticism can be used to “increase student achievement and establish a learning community” (Dearman, et. al, 2005, pg. 636). First developed by Joseph McDonald and David Allen in 1992, the Tuning Protocol was created in order to improve student assessment practices (Blythe, et. al, 1999, pg. 27). The format allows educators to “receive direct and respectful feedback on the problems they present, as well as the opportunity to reflect on the feedback” (McDonald, et. al, 2003).
If you’ve never participated in a Tuning Protocol, it can be a frightening and … Read More
With all the challenges educators face, it can be easy to get lost in the frustrations and road blocks. While those barriers are very real and deserve attention, our hopes and aspirations also deserve consideration. Have you pictured your ideal learning environment lately? I have. And it’s reinvigorating me.
My ideal learning environment is one where students:
Guide their own learning by asking questions and following curiosities.
Explore ideas that pique their interest, thereby formulating their own units of study.
Work collaboratively with others both inside and outside of the classroom in an effort to pursue those interests.
Are encouraged to move freely while still understanding the importance of coming back together and being respectful to others.
Trust their own instincts and grow into responsible “decision-making” and “self-reliant” learners (Saxena, 2013).
Have access to the world, in whatever form that makes sense in that time and place.
Learn from one another.
My ideal learning environment is one where teachers:
Feel comfortable in stepping down from the stage and allow students to see that they don’t know everything, but they are interested in learning alongside their students.
Have ample opportunities for asking questions and taking risks while feeling supported and
Since the rollout of a 1-to-1 laptop program in the fall of 2014 with a school I’m consulting with, there has been very little continuity between the classes. Both teachers and students are so focused on learning the technology that they get lost in the purpose of the device in front of them; to enhance what was already happening in the classroom. I thought by implementing Google Apps for Education, I could solve the problem. Bring all the teachers together. The platform isn’t the problem. The device isn’t the problem. The problem is the preparedness and speed in which the rollout took place. Teachers were given laptops to “play with” for a year before they were put in the hands of students. This experimental time didn’t come with robust professional development opportunities, dedicated mentorship sessions, or even a simple instruction manual. Teachers were expected, much like the students, to “figure it out.” Society claims that our students are “digital natives,” (my argument against that statement needs to be saved for another time) but if we hand over devices to all of the faculty without any support, we must expect them to be natives to the … Read More
I met with one of my colleagues this week and mentioned my plans to formulate an action plan to implement Google Apps for Education (GAFE) at a school I’m working with. She listened intently, but then quietly said, “I don’t think it’s a great idea for students to only use one platform, isn’t that what happens when you jump on the Google Apps for Education bandwagon?” I left that conversation wondering: Is there a right answer? Don’t all choices come with challenges and successes? How does a school make implementation decisions with all of these things in mind?
As I move forward in my examination of GAFE, a suite of productivity applications that Google offers free to schools, I am going to look at the pros and cons and how those nuances might play a role in the adoption of this learning tool. With that being said, this is not a review of GAFE, it’s not a comparative list between GAFE and Microsoft. It’s a question of whether or not this specific tool can meet the specific needs of my faculty and students. In his article, Computer Criticism vs. Technocentric Thinking, Seymour Papert argues that when evaluating a new … Read More
Earlier this week I wrote of my desire to implement the use of Google Apps for Education (GAFE) in a school I’ve partnered with. As I feverishly typed out my goal of changing the school’s tech climate, I quickly found myself slamming on the brakes and furrowing my brow. I know that I desperately want to be a GAFE school, but I’m not able to article the reasons why. What challenges is the school currently facing that could be solved with the implementation of these tools? What is the pedagogical- and content-driven reasons behind my rationale? And most importantly, why GAFE?
While I’m still in the process of wrestling with those ideas, my (wildly supportive) classmates and professors gave me a great deal of thought-provoking feedback throughout the week. Annie Tremonte, one of my classmates suggested using this blog post as a platform to flush out my ideas and reflect on the feedback I was provided from others. This format is very foreign for me and I encourage you to continue to provide me your additional thoughts and reactions, allowing me to continue to grow my ideas in a very transparent way.
Last semester I examined the ISTE Teacher Standards through the Digital Education Leadership program at Seattle Pacific University. This semester I will start my exploration of the ISTE Coaching Standards, paying particular attention to the third standard, Digital Age Learning Environments. As I analyze various resources in the coming weeks, I will be viewing them from the lens of how to formulate an action plan to implement Google Apps for Education (GAFE) in a school I’m consulting with. As it stands, the school I’m examining currently employs a rather disjointed collection of tools to complete any number of tasks; Blackboard for grading, Edmodo for posting assignments, Outlook email for submitting work, LibGuides for content curation, Padlet for collaborating, the list goes on.
While all of these tools serve an excellent purpose, how are they working together to create a well-rounded, transformative experience for our students? Tech coach, Josiah Hodgett from the Shell Lake School District writes, “GAFE is a technology tool that can help you to both inform and instruct. Coming from a theory like TPACK [Technological, Pedagogical, Content Knowledge] – it’s time to look at the interplay of Tech – Pedagogy – Content and determine how they … Read More
In my last post, I shared my plans to conduct a Mystery Skype session with my students, as part of a Global Collaborative Project. After several failed attempts and a great deal of research and planning, the students successfully participated in their first session. Check out the highlights, challenges, and their (very honest) feedback:
This quarter we are exploring the ISTE Teacher Standards and in order to take that learning to the next level, in knowledge and practice, we are planning and facilitating Global Collaborative Projects (GCP). I introduce the project and give an overview of my plans in a previous post, check it out here. In this post, I outline my design for the project and review the 6 A’s of project design:
6 A’s of Project Design
My students attend a small non-secular school where they participate in a Hebrew immersion program for half of their school day. I was talking to a student recently and they mentioned that it was hard to do their Hebrew homework because they didn’t have anyone at home that spoke the language and could offer assistance. This lead me to realize that my students are part of a very small community and it would be a great opportunity for them to see that there are other students from around the world, that they have things in common with.
By connecting my students to another Jewish day school, they can learn about another school, while noting the various similarities and differences. This can help them
My school recently revisited our Acceptable Use Policy (AUP) after not having revised it in over two years. We found several discrepancies and have noted that several parents, while they signed the document, still had an array of questions about the one-to-one laptop program and what the laptops should (and shouldn’t) be used for both on and off campus. With this in mind, the school’s Tech Task Force debated the idea of requiring students and parents to attend an orientation in addition to just signing the AUP. I reviewed the policies and procedures of several other schools in an effort to find what works best for the majority. It seems, there is no majority. All schools approach this issue differently, with varying levels of success. What works for one school, doesn’t work for the … Read More