Assignment #1C 571- 2 Models and 1 Vision

Photo by Hal Gatewood on Unsplash

Technology is key in the modern classroom, that much is clear. The ability to engage more learners in a more diverse way is fundamental in the classroom today. There are many theories out there, as to how technology could be used in the classroom, and the efficacy of these theories are up for debate. However, if we believe that technology can enhance learning, and we believe that technology is becoming more prevalent and essential in modern education, than we must look at the ideas behind these 2 models, and their ability to help each of us, as both learners and teachers.Students learn in different ways, that has always been clear and this understanding has led to the differentiation of learning. Furthermore, teachers styles, and technological abilities, are just as diverse, and must also be taken into account when implementing tech in the classroom. I have told first year teachers in my building, that the most important thing, in my opinion, is that they be themselves and teach the way they teach, not how I, or others, teach. Authenticity is very important in teaching. Therefore, the key is to find a model that works for you.

Technological Pedagogical and Content Knowledge (TPACK) is a very interesting take on the idea of separating content, technology and pedagogy. I, as a tech teacher, generally look at this triad  through a tech vein. Let’s look at an example from my class on making a poster for an event. I look at the new and older tech and see its possibilities and downfalls. I will then look at the content that I am trying to teach, poster creation. After that I look at how I am going to teach that content to a whole class of diverse learners,  where they get to complete the project at their own level. If I allowed myself to be stuck to one software, I would be in trouble, as the abilities of learners and the software I choose may create challenges for some and limits for others. Therefore, I generally offer different software (Adobe In-Design, Microsoft Publisher, and Microsoft Word) as options for the students. The content as to what makes a good poster (see here for ideas) is the same, however my pedagogy, and technology use, changes based on the students individually. Increased numbers of technology options creates choice, and affords me the ability to reach all my students with the same content outcomes. 

The Substitution, Augmentation, Modification, and Redefinition (SAMR) model is based on a more Taxonomological ideal. There are different levels, that are more transformative the farther you move up the Taxonomy.  There are the base levels that are categorized as “enhancements”, those being substitution and augmentation. The upper levels are seen as “transformative” and are represented by modification and redefinition. The basis for, and the problems with, SAMR as a tool, are well laid out in the critical review by Hamilton, Rosenberg, and Akcaoglu. The idea of, “Product over Process” (Pg. 438), is one that we all face. My response would be, if the product is transformational, creating and editing a newscast on an issue of today, for example, that in most cases there has to be great learning, not only in terms of content, but also software, to create that newscast. Therefore, it is my pedagogy that would have to adapt to allow for this different process and product to take place. 

I do not see SAMR and TPACK as competing theories, but instead 2 ways in capturing a diverse classroom. One does not exist in-spite of the other, as most theories don’t, but can both be used simultaneously, as I believe we all do. I am in an enviable position in that I am teaching in a technology rich room as the tech teacher. I also realize that as my job is teaching tech to classrooms with different abilities and needs. I see the validity in both these models and believe we all strive to have our learners create individualized, informative, and differentiated products that meet their understanding and ability. The possibilities for demonstrating learning are only hindered by software availability and the learners’ vision.  

By Andrew Vogelsang