|3f. Collaborate with teachers and administrators to select and evaluate digital tools and resources that enhance teaching and learning and are compatible with the school technology infrastructure.|
I have been looking for a model that will help teachers begin to talk about, label and begin thinking differently about the tools they have at hand or get them comfortable enough to reach out and try some new tools (All Innovative Designers Need Good Tools) but I want them to do it in the context of student learning and outcomes. If the technology is the focus of the lesson we have gotten off track. I have taught my Future Ready cohort about the SAMR model and I think it is a simple model to get people started. I do find that the categories of augmentation and modification over lap quite a bit and can sometimes be difficult for teachers to clearly see the difference. This winter I co-presented on SAMR (Puentedura, 2012) , TPACK (Koehler, 2009) and the Triple E Framework (Kolb, 2017) at Northwest Council for Computer Education (NCCE) 2018 and was able to dive a little deeper into the Triple E Framework as part of my practicum at Seattle Pacific University. There are redeeming qualities to all the models, depending on your purpose for evaluating a lesson. SAMR is a good model to start with as long as we keep teachers a way from feeling like they have to always be teaching at the redefinition level to be successful. TPACK is a good model to help us keep in mind that technology is only part of the picture. We need to keep in mind strong content and pedagogy as well. I like the TripleEFramework as a way to question how technology is being used in a lesson to increase student learning and engagement. It keeps the learning at the forefront and make sure the technology use is purposeful.
The reason that I am mentioning these tools is that I believe that it is important that teachers and administrators who are selecting digital tools have a firm grasp of how digital tools can be used to transform learning and engage students in the process of self-directed learning. Without that grounding in the pedagogy and best practice of using technology in the classroom they will evaluate and select tools based on very surface level needs and may not ask questions about how the tool would be best used for learning.
I have run a number of technology adoptions in the last few years. We’ve adopted an Learning Management System (Canvas), a video based skill training platform (Kyte) a Professional Development Clock Hours platform (Frontline) and we are working on a search for a keyboarding product. We have developed a pretty solid approach to adopting tools. We start by educating committee members on why we are doing a search (identifying the problem), we then learn more about the possibilities for solving the problem, develop criteria for the tool we are looking for, evaluate a number of products, pilot and evaluate them based on our criteria and then come to consensus on our decision. We involve the technology department from the criteria stage onward so they can make sure the are adding their technological requirements into the conversation. It is a very collaborative process that involves as many stakeholders as possible. Here is an example of the beginning stages of our keyboarding adoption process. Keyboarding Proposal 2018
Koehler, M. (2009). TPACK.ORG. Retrieved from http://tpack.org/
Kolb, L. (2017). The Triple E Framework. Retrieved from https://www.tripleeframework.com/
Puentedura, R. (2014). Ruben R. Puentedura’s Weblog. Retrieved from http://www.hippasus.com/rrpweblog/