Friday, 31 December 2010

Combining two models for designing learning with technology

My previous post introduced the TPCK model of teacher knowledge which helps us examine the types of knowledge a teacher needs when designing learning with technology. The best explanation of this model, and how it combines with Ruben Puentedura's SAMR model of technological use, is given in his presentation available on I-Tunes ( "As We May Teach: Educational Technology, University of Maine").
He describes each intersection of the TPCK model in detail and is worth listening to. In this link he lists exemplar resources to illustrate each intersection. 
Puentedura's SAMR model enables us to classify technology used in teaching depending upon whether it SUBSTITUTES, AUGMENTS, MODIFIES or REDEFINES the task. He depicts SA as Enhancing the learning and MR as Transforming the learning, where the technology allows for learning tasks which would not have been possible before.

Ruben Puentedura describes the SAMR model in this slide show from presentations given at a conference in 2006.
This model may enable us to classify the technology used in schools and to allow us to question the value of technology in a particular area. 
By value I think we should mean whether learning is enhanced, made more accessible, more interesting, more motivating.
It is possible that learning could be enhanced at the pure substitution level. The model does not seem to imply that learning is improved per se - just that technology is substituting traditional tasks/methods. 
By definition, the model considers improvement from A onwards.
If we start to consider each course we prepare in these terms, it will allow us to determine the value of the technology to be used - is it improving the learning?
In the conference slide show, Puentedura explains where his model originated. He developed it to describe the uptake of technology by firms in a study. Interestingly, he maintained that those where the technology Redesigned the way the tasks were carried out, had the greatest return on the technological investment. In a way this makes sense.

No comments: