Sunday, October 9, 2016

Way of the SAMR eye

morpheus-samr-meme

Steve talks to himself...


- So how did the lessons go, Steve?

Which ones?

You know what I mean. You’ve been procrastinating.

I don’t call it procrastination when I’m busy with other things.

I’ll just let that excuse hang in the air.

OK. I’m still chasing the last five students, but all the 12 pieces of work I’ve received I’ve given feedback to and I’m very happy with them. There was the full range of grades on the IB scale, from 7 down to 1.

I’m actually asking you to evaluate it.

That’s what I’m doing. We finished the planned activities, and my fear that the ‘imaginative document’ I’d requested from the class would default to Google Slides in all cases proved unfounded. I got a Canva, Prezi, PDF, Pages, jpg and the rest were in Google. I gave them a mark out of 8 on the rubric I had shared at the start and commented briefly on strengths and weaknesses for each student. I haven’t shared it back to the students yet. I’m waiting for the lesson when I see them next.

So that’s an evaluation then? Was it a good learning activity? Would you do it again? How would you improve it?

I’m definitely keen to do it again - if only because I spent a lot of time preparing the materials; I’ve got things I would change, but I see what you’re getting at. If I’m going to evaluate it, I need to have values to compare against.

- Yes. Evaluation is more than just thinking about whether it went well or badly. You should have some sort of process.

- Well as luck would have it, I picked something up from Twitter which might help. My former colleague Matt shared an article last week while he was at Learning 2 in Vietnam.



- Yes, I've heard you questioning SAMR, you heretic.

[caption id="attachment_63" align="alignright" width="331"]learning-models-gif SAMR, TPACK, TIM, trudacot, PATER[/caption]

- My problem with SAMR is that it gives you wide abstract terms which categorise desirable outcomes, but no help with what it would look like nor how to get there. Redefinition becomes a goal in itself, when we even have difficulty defining what we already do! I tried to help my colleagues realise that every project may contain elements from S through to R. We even started a gallery of SAMR examples both from our own faculty and around the world. But it hasn't stuck as a helpful concept for teachers beginning to work with ed tech.

- And if I forced you to look at your lesson through a SAMR lens?

- Then I'd say I Augmented the task. Whichever culture in society they chose, the students had instant access to first hand accounts of the beliefs and practices. Also, they had an unlimited range of ways to express themselves imaginatively. And when we discuss the work in class and when I repeat the activity in the future, students will be able to easily consult many exemplars both in the classroom and at home. But looking at the rubric and task, I can't claim either Modification nor Redefinition since in essence it was just a written task for which students were encouraged to be creative.

- Right. So TPACK?

- To be honest, I've never used it before though it always comes up when models are discussed. As I understand it, my lesson did combine knowledge of Content (I wanted the students to consider cultures in society); Pedagogy (I considered how I would get their interest and how they would engage with the concepts); and Technology (I found the stimulus online; presented it using TED Ed; the students' work was created, shared, assessed and returned without using paper).

- But just because you are in the Sweet Spot of the Venn diagram, is that enough to say it was balanced or a good application of the three knowledges?

- No it doesn't. Now you're going to ask me about TIM, in which case I would say my learning environment was Active and my level of integration was between late Adaptation and early Infusion.

- You're being very brief with those models...

- Yes, I know, but I think they are built more as a framework for evaluation of a teacher or school's general practice. As Morpheus says, a model is not a recipe. You have to use it in the right way and although my lesson survives their scrutiny and I can think of ways in which it could score more highly, that would not necessarily make it better.

- So ditch the models...

- No, because there was another process described in the article. It's called PATER and it made a lot of sense to me.

- Aha, finally an acronym which spells a real word! So where are you on the PATER scale?

- I'm everywhere at once.

- ?????

- There is no scale, it's a cycle through Purpose, Activity Structures, Tools, Evaluation and Reflection. It recognises that we are not starting from scratch, but we are reviewing our teaching activities which already exist. Although our templates suggest that planning always starts with goals, that is an ideal which for many reasons, both practical and accidental, does not always happen. I love it when it does, but...

- That's a big topic you could perhaps cover in another blogpost. What about the 'Is it a Culture?' lesson we are discussing?

[caption id="attachment_65" align="alignright" width="300"]7_elements_of_the_lesson Those 7 elements in full[/caption]

- Right. Well by considering what my goals were for the lesson, in order to evaluate it, I realise that there was never a time when I wrote them down. There were seven ingredients which fed into the activity and each dictated a facet of the teaching and assessing, but none of them is an a priori goal. The outcome was dictated by the rubric which I adapted. The other elements all played their part too, but if we were to believe the theory, I should have stopped at number 1, identified all of my goals and then determined whether the other 6 elements were appropriate (and if they weren't, re-write the rubric, find another stimulus and so on...).

- So...

- So what PATER has helped me realise is that I didn't do it perfectly according to the template. I let the rubric dictate the teaching goals. But I don't have to feel bad about that and I shouldn't pretend that it happened otherwise. So long as I learn from it.

- Hurray!

"Finding out why we are doing what we already were doing is an exciting moment." Welcome to Night Vale by Fink and Cranor p99




[caption id="attachment_64" align="aligncenter" width="300"]samr-eye SAMR + eye = samurai[/caption]

8 comments:

  1. Hi Steve,

    I liked the way you presented this topic. I've often been frustrated with the abundance of models available. It can often be confusing to teachers when we throw all of these acronyms at them when all they want to know is how they can improve their practice.

    I think that is one of the reasons for the attraction to SAMR. It's easy model to remember and follow. We're looking for ways in which we can move up the ladder (per se). No model is perfect and fits every situation which is why it would be foolish to label lesson plans with a S,A,M,R letter grade. Though I do think examples do serve as a good example for teacher to get an understanding of what we are talking about. The other problem with the models they are often presented without any of the supporting information behind it. The visual is treated as gospel which leads to much misinterpretation. Are the models to address the teacher? The Lesson plan? My rubric?

    I have to admit I had not heard of Pater! (Sorry David). From your description and skimming the paper I think I like where it's going. One of the problems of models if they often have an end, a belief that once I get to that point my job is over. A matter which I think pater addresses. I'm going to have to take a closer look. Thanks for sharing!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thanks for commenting and thinking along, Stephen. You're right, a ladder is an unhelpful image. I do believe, however, in the power of models to channel our thinking. In reality, I could work with any of the ones mentioned here. But a school should be faithful to the one it picks so that it develops a depth of experience with it. The most important thing is the act of evaluation itself, not the particular flavour of it.

    ReplyDelete
  3. comment is made via video posted on youtube https://youtu.be/Uar5sOGvBxU

    ReplyDelete
  4. Thanks for thinking along, Brian. As you noticed, I question the purpose of most of the models (probably all of them). SAMR is the most well-known and represents some good thinking, I'm sure, but my issues are several:
    1 What should SAMR be used for? I don't see how a teacher developing lessons is going to be helped by something which analyses tech integration in broad concepts. Someone who is learning to repair bikes needs tools and techniques, not the principles of physics (relevant but too removed from the job in hand).
    2 When I nonetheless try to apply SAMR to a particular teaching activity, I find that different aspects of the teaching are on different SAMR rungs.
    3 As you say in the video, Redefinition is such a high bar! I can't say, hand on heart, that I've ever 'transformed' a lesson (nor have I seen it happen very often). And as teachers we are used to considering the top grades as attainable, which leads to uncomfortable conversations with eager colleagues about their redefinitions (when we have enough problems just defining what we do).
    4 The other side of the coin is that Substitution becomes a swear-word ("he thinks he's an integrator but I saw him substituting!") whereas there are many worthy lessons taught which use technology but which closely resemble what went before (which was good).

    I think what you're doing is very important: nailing down a philosophy to which your committee can refer. The challenge I have often seen in this task is how to develop one which is distinctive and practical. If you read about a model you like AND can see how it will help your teachers grow, please let me know.
    Steve

    ReplyDelete
  5. thanks for taking the extra effort for placing feedback on the youtube channel. I made a comment on your comment in this video https://youtu.be/SF_jOIM9rMc

    ReplyDelete