I think it's important for teachers to evaluate their teaching strategies.
From my perspective, speaking now as somebody who has taught for many years,
there's an aspect of saying, Well how can I do this better?
What led me to develop the SAMR Model was some work
I did back in the mid 80s. I was a graduate student at Harvard at that
point and working on rethinking aspects of the undergraduate introductory
science curriculum. And at that point I could see that some of the tools we have
for digital storytelling and so on could really make a change. But it wasn't clear
that this was anything intrinsic to a given tool and rather a question of
different types of practice associated with this. So that's what triggered the
desire to research the topic and eventually led to the SAMR Model.
It's very important for people to feel comfortable with the tools to evolve their practice
so it's just fine for people say - Look, I'm going to start doing what I already
do at the Substitution to Augmentation levels. Incorporate the tools, enhance my
current practice, and when I'm comfortable with that
move on to incorporating elements at Modification to Redefinition.
That's a perfectly valid approach - in fact to be honest with you -
I think it's the approach that would work for most teachers.
There are many things that work just fine at Substitution to Augmentation levels.
For instance, assume I'm teaching a course on poetry.
It's fine if I decide as an educator that I'm going to create, say, an e-book
that incorporates the poems, some readings of the poems, maybe some
critical elements to allow the students to read different interpretations and so on,
which would take it roughly to an Augmentation level.
But it's not necessary to say, Well now what do I do with this book so that the
very act of reading the poems is at the Modification to Redefinition levels?
That's just fine. You can say, Well, what else in my practice of teaching
literature am I going to incorporate that is at the Modification to Redefinition levels?
The difference between Augmentation and Modification
is whether you're essentially reproducing what you were
doing before in your practice, or you're significantly
modifying it, but keeping the heart of matter. So let me give you an example.
Suppose that I'm teaching geography. If I'm using maps, digital maps, to teach geography and I
say to students, well I want you to create maps of - say you're studying Egypt -
I want you to create maps of Egypt that outline of archeological sites that you're
interested in and that also outline areas that were important agriculturally. And we
start to see - well do these in two different layers, so you can see
correlations between the two, etc. Link the archaeological sites to resources on
the sites. All of that is quite wonderful. Now suppose that you're saying okay I'm
using digital maps but now I'm not just going to ask the students to replicate
what I would have done with traditional paper maps. Instead I'm going to say I
still want them creating maps because it's important for them to develop the
understanding of geography. But I'm going to ask them to create the maps in such a
way that they're interacting with each other. So that they create the digital
maps in shared sites, and they use them as gateways to each other's knowledge.
So now one student is very interested in the archaeology aspects,
and that student focuses on things like where were the temples.
Another student is very interested in commerce, so they focus on where were the trading
ports, and they create their maps. We have them engaging in a deeper conversation,
where you're using the digital maps as a gateway for a social practice of
exploration. In effect you're asking your students to become geographers, and use
the maps to talk with each other, integrate each other's discoveries,
build the practice that is mediated by the social use of the tools in a networked environment.
That will take you up to Modification because while you still have some of the
heart of the matter - make sure the students understand these
concepts by developing maps about them - you've significantly modified it by changing it from
something they would do individually to something they would do socially,
where in effect, they're acting as peer mentors to each other.
Really good use of the technology at the Modification to Redefinition levels allows students to
engage in exploration of areas that they might not have otherwise. Let me give you an example
from some of my own practice. I have a background as a chemist, and in particular one of the fascinating things
that we can do the technology is we can bring students into how chemists think
at a much deeper level, even at the beginning of their studies than we otherwise could
because we have tools for visualizing molecules, we have tools for simulating
and visualizing interactions and reactions between molecules, and we have
the tools for students to say well, can I take some experimental data, and not just
play with a couple of toy experiments but actually do some real analysis based upon what I've understood.
One of the things I see happening in classrooms that are very successful at
incorporating tools at the Modification and Redefinition levels, is I see students taking charge of their education.
Those are classes where the students aren't just waiting for something to happen.
They're the classrooms where students are saying - oh wait. We've been doing this, but I also want to
do this other thing. And I can see a better way of doing that! And there's a
certain excitement, a certain ownership of the learning. There's a certain joy
in figuring out, Gee, I could do this different way and bring something
different or new to my students. And I think keeping teaching practice
as something enjoyable, lively - the reason that so many teachers
become teachers in the first place. Keeping the passion alive. So again,
a continual re-examination of practice allows me as a teacher to make the best
possible use of the technology to accomplish my goals.
you