I could not help to question.....2 weeks later and I am making my own meme.
Why SAMR is like ordering 'pumpkin spice'.
- There is no research behind it. This shocked me. I have seen SAMR all over the show, at conferences, in publications and referenced by people I respect. How could it be that a model so widely used has no research behind it? What is confusing is watching Ruben Puentedura (the creator of SAMR - yes he has a PHD after his name, but for Chemistry - not Education) talk. He mentions research throughout, even stating that "redefinition tasks can improve student outcomes by as much as the equivalent of roughly 2 letter grades"..... the study that shows this 'jump' is unseen, like all of Mr Puentedura's research. Equally unfortunate is that he simply states 'student outcomes' without defining what student outcomes means. Does it mean progress, engagement, ability? Research from other people is cited in his talks, which is genuine, such as having an authentic audience improving student motivation, but no research is available that shows the SAMR model improves student outcomes. Without research, I think it gets relegated to an idea, not a model.
- It is misunderstood. Countless examples of the interpretations of SAMR are around to the point that I do not even know what the correct interpretation is. I have watched Ruben Puentedura describe SAMR as a ladder model, with the end goal to reach redefinition. I have seen it being used as a planning model, with teachers assessing what 'level' of SAMR a learning activity or (gulp) App is. I have always thought of it as more of a 'check in' - something for teachers to consider, mainly to ensure they are not always at the 'substituting level'. By definition a model is something others can follow and we have no shared understanding about what SAMR is about.
- What is wrong with substituting? At times, substitution is fine, possibly essential. We may want to take notes on a device so we don't lose them or so we can copy and paste them into another tool at a later time to further analyse key ideas. Or we may find it quicker and more convenient to read a book on an eReader. The point is, there is no point analysing what 'level' a task is, as there is a time and place for all learning tasks.
- What is so great about redefinition? By definition, a redefinition task is a task that was 'inconceivable' before the tech. So that means cyber-bullying would fit great into redefinition, as would re-sharing cat videos on Facebook and messaging friends instead of visiting them. Newer is not always better. Sure, SAMR advocates would say 'of course these things are not redefinition - they are not even learning tasks' which is exactly my point. The model is not even about learning - it is about using technology. Which segways nicely into...
- Why are we placing technology on a pedestal? This has always bothered me. Why do we have a model that is supposed to 'level' a learning task only apply to learning with devices? Can other tools 'redefine' learning? I have seen some amazing Enviro-School projects that allows for tasks 'inconceivable' without a school vegetable garden. Are these tasks as important? Do we need a model to show 'types of Enviro-School tasks'? Would it improve our collective abilities to use school vegetable gardens if we did?
I think the SAMR idea is an OK reflection 'tool' for teachers, whereby teachers can look back at their technology integration over a term/year and reflect on their use of technology. Has it always been simply substitution? Or has the technology gone beyond simply replacing 'pen and paper'?
Until some serious peer reviewed research occurs, I believe we should focus on a more simple model - "Use technology purposefully'.
References
Until some serious peer reviewed research occurs, I believe we should focus on a more simple model - "Use technology purposefully'.
References
No comments:
Post a Comment