In the classroom

So what do TPACK, RAT, SAMR, ISTE, and all the other technological acronyms look like in the classroom? How do we know when tech is being used appropriately in the classroom? There are so many applications, platforms, and programs available to students now. They can't all be transformative!

(Barker, 2015)

Truly, many of them are not; but that is okay. Membean is the example that comes to mind most appropriately. Membean is an online vocabulary building program that students at my school are required to engage in every week. The program introduces vocabulary words to study in an algorithmic manner so as to ensure the deepest memorization. This is far from transformative. But the effort required to teach vocab as rigorously and efficiently as membean teaches it is so vast that teachers would not be able to accomplish much else if they created such a program off the grid. Membean is not transformative, but it is still important. And helpful. And it contributes to the enrichment of students, which is always a good thing.

There are so many technologies out there that it is impossible to fluent in all of them, but an excellent teacher needs to be able to recognize a useful technology when she sees it. If we are using tech as the $1,000 pencil, then something needs to change. I am a proponent of the idea that any technology can be transformative if it is used right. Conversely, any transformative technology can be substitution-level if it is not used correctly.

(Gartin, 2016).

References

Barker, S. Membean screenshot [Image]. Retrieved from http://ponderingsofalifelonglearner.blogspot.com/2015/02/thoughts-on-membean-from-math-girl-and.html

Gartin, J. (2016). RAT model prompt [Image]. Retrieved from https://docs.google.com/drawings/d/1PhZUU_C8qOaMT-NF5jd_qtdQRPrRyq0NeVEPyeExVk4/edit

TPACK

(Common Sense Education, 2014)


The TPACK model integrates three different types of knowledge integral to the teaching profession. Content and pedgogical knowledge intersect and overlap to create the art of teaching, but TPACK introduces technical knowledge as a third layer to the framework. Consider the following illustration:

(Kohler, n. d,)

There are actually seven different areas of the TPACK framework. The traditional "art of teaching" area is the green sliver made up of the overlapping of pedagogical and content knowledge. Superb learning occurs when a teacher knows the content and knows how best to teach it. With the ubiquitous nature of technology, though, educators must not only be knowledgeable about technology, but proficient in using it to teach. 

The dark green "sweet spot" is the aim of any teacher using the TPACK framework. This is where the mastery art of teaching is transformed by technology to foster learning in ways that were once unimaginable. Any of the seven areas in the model can spur learning, but only in the dark green middle is education truly transformative.

This is not an easy bullseye to hit, though. Lots of time and effort goes to working toward the sweet spot. In fact, it can create a lot of self-doubt and frustration.

Illustrated by the image at left is the amount of time devoted to integrating technology in relation to its visibility. Substitution-tier tech creates a lot of visibility, but there exists a fairly steep dropoff once teachers move into the augmentation tier. It is not until students begin regularly learning "above the line" that visibility increase again, and even then, it is at a much slower pace.
(Klapdor, n. d.)

The trick for teachers is to stay with technology long enough to reach transformative levels. This will always be accompanied by a ride through the trough of disillusionment, almost like a rite of passage. But it will be worth it to be consistently in that sweet spot.

References

Common Sense Education. (2014, November 3). Introduction to the TPACK model [Video]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmRw_wARuMk

Klapdor, T. (n. d.) SAMR time-visibility slope [Image]. Retrieved from http://ditchthattextbook.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/samr-visibility-time.jpg

Kohler, M. (n. d.). The TPACK image [image]. Retrieved from: http://tpack.org

SAMR and RAT

Two models exist for the spectrum of technology use in education: SAMR, which is the prevailing model for now, and RAT, the newer, pared down iteration. Both aim to differentiate the levels at which technology is effective, and they essentially claim the same thing: that technology can be used to replace or subtly change educational practices, or it can transform it.



(Rossman, 2015).

SAMR takes a four-tiered approach toward educational technology: Substitution, Augmentation, Modification, and Redefinition. The first two tiers barely change the way content is delivered, and are referred to as the enhancement level. Transformation occurs above the imaginary line that separates enhancement-level technology from modification and redefinition. This is where new, exciting opportunities that were once though impossible can happen. Think something along the lines of: 8th grade Spanish classroom speaks chats live with students in a Mexico school through Skype. This isn't your grandparents' education. Technology allows for such things to happen on a daily basis.

The RAT model makes the same general claim, but spells it out like this:

 (Hughes, Thomas & Scharber, 2006)

The transformation level of SAMR is condensed to one tier, and only two other tiers exist. The model operates on the principal of Occam's razor: there does not need to be any longer explanation than what is necessary. Essentially educational technology either does not change instruction, or it changes it very little. But when tech is used to create learning that was once thought impossible, it is absolutely transformative.

Personally, I like the RAT model for its straightforward, no-nonsense approach. The modification and augmentation tiers of SAMR are essentially the same thing, except that one occurs above the imaginary line where "learning happens." Frankly, I don't think there is a clear division between where learning happens or it doesn't. In fact, students have the ability to transform content without any technology at all, and often they do.

However, the SAMR model has a bit more stickiness to it, whether that is because of its age or some other factor unbeknownst to me. I am not opposed to it, and to my knowledge, all of my colleagues use it as their tech model, so I suppose I should as well, so as to keep on the same page. But if the paradigm ever shifts, I will be a part of it.

References

Hughes, J., Thomas, R. & Scharber, R. (2006). The RAT - replacement, amplification, and transformation - framework [image]. Retrieved from http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-xhq5nEPtHFc/Ub1AePtTfjI/AAAAAAAAFxY/Fvcr0ZPRLbo/s1600/RAT.004-001.jpg

Rossman, B. (2015). The SAMR model: A new way to think about educational technology [Prezi]. Retrieved from: https://prezi.com/9p7gxc_l640q/the-samr-model/#

ISTE Standards

The ISTE (International Society for Technology in Education) Standards prepare students, teachers, and administrators for the future. (International Society for Technology in Education, n. d.). These standards evolved from the NETS standards proposed at the turn of the century, and focus intensely on technology and 21st century ideas like the 4 C's and digital citizenship.

ISTE Standards for Students (International Society for Technology in Education, n. d.)


Thanks goes to ISTE for creating the standards, but what do we do as educators to incorporate them into our classrooms? Some might feel overwhelmed by another set of standards in addition to the Common Core or other state mandates, but it turns out that the ISTE standards are meant to be a lot more integrative than additive.

We should use these guidelines not as additions to content, but rather as a tool for providing it. Standards were created for teachers, students, administrators, coaches, and computer science educators, but they all have a few themes running through them. Take a look at the standards for students in the graphic above, and then the Prezi on the teacher standards here. Creativity, Innovation, Digital Age Work, and Digital Citizenship are all addressed by each standard, and they carry on through the other three standards sets.

The ISTE standards do not change the content of the classroom, but rather how the content is taught. Rather than teaching through direct instruction and asking students to practice the modeled content in their notebooks, educators should use innovative tools to engage students in the content, and then prompt them to collaborate with their peers in a much more meaningful way. The standards differ subtly according to who is being addressed, but at their heart, they are all about using technology to transform education.

References

Gaetjens, M. & Gartin, J. (2016). ISTE standards for teachers [Prezi]. Retrieved from https://prezi.com/i8hyovf6csfj/iste-standards/?utm_campaign=share&utm_medium=copy

International Society for Technology in Education. (n.d.). ISTE standards for students. Retrieved from http://www.iste.org/standards/iste-standards/standards-for-students