Wow, this way of thinking about technology integration in schools was so helpful and also a bit challenging. Even more challenging was as we dove deeper into different examples of technology use in classrooms and people justified which part of the model they fit in, often times there was more than one right answer. As we continued to wrap our brains around how substitution, augmentation, modification, and redefinition could look different we realized that it was more of a cyclical process.
This second graphic was what our understanding of the SAMR model developed into. This idea is that none of the steps in the model are bad or that as a teacher you should freak out if your technology use falls into a substitution category. This lesson did challenge me to think through the different steps and why each has its value and how you can move from one step to the next. An example that made this model in application easier to understand was that of using zoom. If zoom is new for you and you are using it in meaningful ways that enhance learning, it may fall into the redefinition stage. But if zoom is something that you have been using in the same way for a long time and it is used in a way that does not add much to the lesson then it may just be in the augmentation stage. This model is exciting because it is challenging you to think deeply about why you use the technology that you do.
I agree, Hannah! I like how the cyclical model shows that SAMR is ever-changing and that technology is not constant and always changing. This also challenged my thinking but really opened my eyes to the fact that a good educator should take each lesson and consider how they can improve learning using the SAMR model.
ReplyDelete