Filling the void...Life without SAMR

Despite previous ramblings, I do like a lot about the SAMR model. It is a guided focus for professional discussions and personal reflection. For many educators it is also inspirational, with Modified and Redefined tasks a 'holy grail' that can be strived for. 

It is easier to criticise than to create, so my challenge has been to create an alternative to SAMR, something that is equally aspirational for educators.

To achieve this task, I have considered learning experiences that are exceptional and found common the threads between them. As per my previous SAMR post, I believe 'Redefined' tasks should not be limited to tasks completed with technology. 'eTools' are just that - electronic tools for learning. They cannot be put above other learning tools.

I would like to disclaim that this is Version 0.1. I have already changed words multiple times...Like any blog post, here is my current thinking.

SAMR - Some Apps Model (without) Research

Recently, I was googling (creative commons free) images of the SAMR model and saw these images;

I could not help to question.....2 weeks later and I am making my own meme.

Why SAMR is like ordering 'pumpkin spice'.

1. 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. 
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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...
5. 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

http://charlielove.org/?p=10025
http://royanlee.com/?p=3375

http://cognitiverigor.blogspot.co.nz/2015/05/mapping-samr-to-blooms-taxonomy-no-can.html

http://cillajohansson.se/?p=533

http://spelvetenskap.blogspot.co.nz/2013/10/open-letter-to-dr-ruben-puentedura.html

http://www.e-ohagan.com/a-critical-review-of-puenteduras-samr/
http://thelearningcounsel.com/article/what%E2%80%99s-wrong-samr-education-0

Sunk Cost Bias in Education (and Life)

I have enjoyed listening to the book Essentialism. The Disciplined Pursuit of Less By Greg McKeown over the last week. Many ideas have challenged my thinking, but one that I want to act on is a relatively well-known theory - The Sunk Cost Bias. 

The Sunk Cost Fallacy is explained on Freakonomics as;
 A “sunk cost” is just what it sounds like: time or money you’ve already spent. The sunk-cost fallacy is when you tell yourself that you can’t quit because of all that time or money you spent. We shouldn’t fall for this fallacy, but we do it all the time.

I found it remarkably easy to think of times I have falling to this fallacy. I guess like anything when you are aware of a problem you are halfway towards a solution, so I write this post to aide my awareness (and yours...);

1. Do you pay more to maintain technology than you would pay to purchase it if you did not own it? E.g. spending hundreds on technicians servicing computers that you would not purchase in their current condition for more than $50 if you did not own them. 

The hard thing about this is research has proven we value things we own more than things we do not own. So we may only be prepared to sell something we already own for $200 - but if we did not own it we may only be prepared to buy it for $100. 
Counter: Ask yourself how much money you would spend if you walked into a store to purchase the item before you commit to spending more on its 
maintenance. 

2. Do you spend money on a service or product because 'you know how to use it now' or you spent a long time setting it up? When a product or service is complicated to set up and learn I believe you are far less likely to move away from it - even if it is no longer meeting your needs. Any product in which individual accounts have been created for every student seems to stick around longer in schools than products with minimal user input - which seems completely counter-productive; but if you have invested time in setting something up you often want to 'reap the rewards' even when the ship has long since sailed.

This is the reason so many companies offer 'free trials'. They know that once you have invested your time into learning their system you are likely to use it.
Counter: Balance the time you will save with the superior product - and acknowledge that time spent on the old product served its purpose and probably provided you with transferable skills. Understand that ongoing commitments to services, ideas or products should depend on their continuing usefulness - not their past history.

3. Do you persist on using an idea you have spent lots of time with - even when it does not work effectively? I was once part of a group that spent alot of time with an external facilitator on an Inquiry Learner Model. The more time we spent with the facilitators model, the more we knew it did not met our needs; but the more time we spent the harder it was to let go of - after all we had invested so much time!
Counter: Chances are there will be takeaways from any learning - even if you ultimately do not fully subscribe to the ideas. Recognise that knowing what you do not want is just as important as knowing what you do want.

4. Do you use technology for no purpose - because you previously spent money on it and time to learn? I often wonder why teachers can fall into the Substitute trap (i.e.  SAMR model). Thinking of the Sunk Cost Bias it makes some sense, time and money has been invested in this new device - so it needs to be utilised now - even if it is not achieving anything beyond what pen and paper could.  A classic example is seeing calculators being utilised on devices - even though a set of class calculators has gathered dust on the shelf for years before the shiny new device was brought in!
Counter: Utilise the Sunk Cost Bias productively by having teachers spend some time learning something new; be it attending a conference in the school holidays or joining in a twitter chat. Know that by investing some time we will be more likely to invest further time - no one wants to invest something and see no rewards from it! 

5. Do you continue with a lesson/idea/project - even when the students have lost engagement? When you have spent hours over the holidays planning the most amazing learning for your students but the students do not share your enthusiasm....how easy do you find it to flag the concept, talk to your students about alternative ideas and forget about the late nights you spent researching ideas and developing resources? 
Counter: Don't spend hours planning something for others, thinking that your excitements means others will also be excited! And if you still find yourself in this situation, remember you cannot reclaim your time! 

Be proud to admit your mistakes - and have an honest conversation with your learners to show that you have a Growth Mindset.

Your device is not a typewriter...Moving on from Publishing

The importance of the SAMR model lies within moving on from the purely 'substitution' level where a book is replaced with a device to higher levels of thinking where devices enhance learning beyond what is otherwise possible.

My first term teaching Year 1 and 2's I had a 'publishing' cycle going on for weeks - and most students never finished their initial story. As we had limited devices, students using them as typewriters resulted in others not being able to use devices to enhance their learning :(

Publishing on a device with students incapable of typing 10+ words a minute (usually 5 - 7 year old's) is a poor use of everyone's time - and obviously at the substitute end of the SAMR model. 

But, I had a vision of their stories being on the wall, in books for their classmates to read in the library and in the school newsletters. I wanted parents and our older buddy class to read our stories on our blog and give us feedback. I wanted Nana's around the world to read and - most importantly - I wanted the kids to know they were authors.

So, how to publish Junior writing to reap rewards without the pain?

1. Adult (Parent) or older student helpers. Obvious, but often underutilised. Most parents run away from fundraising and working bees, but getting to take home 10 books to type up in the comfort of their home is far more palatable. If you are lucky enough to organise some typists, I recommend them typing up stories in Times New Roman with no formatting, so students have some ownership by changing fonts, adding titles etc. I also once had a group of keen Year 5 - 6s come in one lunch a week to type a few stories each.
2. Using photos/scan of students work for blogs. If possible, take the time to teach them to take their own photos! At least once a term I used to have my class bring any learning they were proud of to the library photocopier and let them scan away. We would then post our proud learning moments to blogs.
3. Have students select one or two 'gems' of sentences to publish themselves, which they can then type themselves. This is a great method when you want to surround your walls with effective language. By only selecting one sentence, your walls will be filled with rich language not "I went to the..."
4. Use voice to text Apps. Honestly, I wish this was the only idea in this list, but the truth is I have never had great success with them, to the point that I would not recommend any I have tried, but if you know one that works - good for you (and please tell me!)
5. Don't type - record! Is a story made into a multimedia visual extravaganza still a story? I think so. Use Apps like Puppet Pals, Book Creator, Adobe Voice or Sock Puppet. Or record students using whatever video/audio recorders you can find. Creating these text-less medians is great for blogs - but not for your walls. My solution to this? QR codes and with book/movie covers on the wall.

Yes, to collaborate, question, discuss, critique and evaluate content, the content must first be made available. Allowing the time to be spend at these higher level activities and not the typing is the message.