(Jamie Fath lecture, 2015)
“Teaching above the
line” is often used when discussing SAMR. I think this is an important concept
because it pushes teachers to take technology use to that next level. Just as
the image shows, teaching above the line transforms learning with the use of the technology tool. This model helps support teachers as they design and integrate the use of the technology. When teaching above the line, student engagement becomes more of the focus, pushing students to "transform" their learning. In my opinion, this is exactly why technology should exist and
reasons why integration can help take student learning to that next level.
Depending on the age
group, SAMR is a good model for teachers to use when discussing technology use
with students. As a future Early Childhood Education teacher, I do not foresee
myself using this terminology with my students, as it is nowhere near
developmentally appropriate. Even when finding words that would make sense to
them, I have a hard time seeing this as a concept that even really needs to be
discussed. Perhaps I should challenge myself to incorporate this into my classroom to take my students' technology understanding to that next level. When it comes to older students, this could be incredibly
beneficial, as they would have a greater understanding of the purposes of
technology and its different uses.
SAMR relates to
Grounded Technology Integration as I would say each of the five steps of Grounded
Technology Integration consider SAMR.
The five steps of
Grounded Technology Integration:
1. Choose learning goals.
2. Make pedagogical decisions.
3. Select activity types to combine.
4. Select assessment strategies.
5. Select tools/resources.
(Harris & Hofer, 2009)
SAMR really focuses
on Step 5, select tools and resources, but it includes steps 1-4 in deciding
how beneficial the tool is and what purpose it is serving.
I evaluated the
Arizona Technology Integration Matrix, also known as TIM. This matrix considers
the level of technology integration into the curriculum, which I would say is
where SAMR falls, with characteristics of the learning environment. SAMR has more of a technology-driven feel to it with the underlying emphasis that when "teaching above the line," student engagement and learning will be increase.
I like how TIM
considers the characteristics of a learning environment when considering
technology integration. I also appreciate the resources that come along with
it. It is a lot more extensive, so if I lacked knowledge or experience with
technology, it would be a great resource as a teacher. I appreciate how SAMR is short and to the point. It serves as a quick self-evaluation of my integration of technology use. That being said, there are a few
gray areas that come along with SAMR while TIM is a matrix of 25 cells,
making it more cut and dry.
These both relate
back to TPACK as technology will never reach its full potential if content
knowledge and pedagogy are not considered first and then successfully
intertwined together with technology. To me, SAMR and TIM are useless without considering TPACK
when integrating technology. TIM and SAMR are useful resources when it
comes to integrated technology as long as content knowledge and pedagogy are
always considered when choosing tools.
Articles and websites contributing to my reflection and opinions:
No comments:
Post a Comment