SAMR vs TIM

Sounds like a B-movie title to me.

SAMR and TIM were both conceived around 2006 to try to create a way for teachers and administrators to track or determine how teachers were beginning to use technology in the classroom. They were both developed for use by different states but essentially they were meant to do the same thing. I think they are both adequate for what they were intended to do but, (you knew there would be a but. I know you saw that coming) I don't think we are applying them correctly at least I hope so. Before I continue, I want to say that at this point I thought I liked TIM better because it at least includes the student in the model but it is too detailed and seems to model exactly the opposite of what it intends. I don't necessarily understand how they get their conclusions but the attempt is made. SAMR allows some freedom to interpret lessons without being told what to do but TIM gives the freedom to just use technology without redefining a lesson to incorporate new technology. Let's break down both models.

SAMR is like chasing a ghost. You can get to R, redefinition, but it won't last. Once you finally get there, technology will change and you have to redefine your lesson again to a point that what you are doing couldn't have been done before. I think SAMR works well if you are being technology specific but if you are looking at the process as a whole what happens when the technology changes? I might achieve an R but 1 year later I'm stuck doing things like I have been and therefore what couldn't have been done before has been done for at least a year.  SAMR requires constant redefinition. When does it stop? The example used by Dr. Puentedura involves Google Earth. Would that same lesson be viable today as a SAMR model? I have to sidenote and say the latte example I watched was just dumb.

TIM does much the same thing except it is more specific and detailed. After looking through lessons that involved Moodle and other out of date programs, I looked at the math lesson in the highest square possible. The outcome was impressive but I don't understand how it fits the very detailed explanation of what that area looks like for teachers and students. Basically kids wrote out and recorded the process of how to work problems involving decimals. The teacher then used several different pieces of software to put it all in one place so kids could hear and see the problems being worked. It took over 2 weeks and most of the technology use was done by the teacher. The kids just recorded themselves and this was the one they chose as their flagship for the proper way to be at the highest position on their chart?

I think both TIM and SAMR have their place. They are excellent guides for teachers who want to start using technology and know where they stand with its use. They may realize they have a ways to go before they reach the goal they set for themselves. I don't believe either model should be used to judge a teacher's use of technology. Both models are quickly outdated forcing teachers to constantly change. Both models seem to advocate the use of technology for the sake of using technology. There is no need to rewrite everything just so that it is being done with technology. This is my original thought. Hopefully this was not the intent of these models but it seems to be how they are being applied at this time. Forcing the use of technology for the sake of using technology is to ignore and stifle certain aspects of creativity. Let's not just let the technology do it for us and ignore the physical exhilaration of doing it ourselves.

Students these days learn differently?

I will probably repeat this in most of my blogs because I don't want to come across as someone who believes he knows everything. My world is shades of gray and without all the facts and opinions from peers, my opinions are not set in stone. I enjoy a good, well informed debate and looking at things from a different angle and point of view. So what I post here are my opinions, generated from my limited knowledge of the world. Please feel free to correct me or attempt to sway my opinion...attempt is the key word! :)

I hear more and more statements being made about how students these days learn differently. I am amazed by this statement! It's as if some how in the last 10 years or less, because of technology and social media, students brain patterns have evolved beyond traditional methods of instruction. The fact that more people, especially those of the lower classes, became more educated and could read after the invention of the printing press wasn't due to a difference in learning but due to the fact that the material was more readily available and affordable. I'm sure that when our forefathers starting using pencil and paper instead of coal and shovels there learning increased. Not because they learned differently but because it was easier to get the material done and resources were more available.

It is my hope that those who make this statement actually mean that students these days learn differently because they have more options, information is more readily available, they can collaborate with peers and experts, and they aren't limited to the knowledge of their teachers and outdated books. That they can learn from different media sources than were previously available. I have no problem agreeing with this but that is not the context where it is generally stated. It is generally stated after talking about social media, mobile devices and personal computers in such a way as to lead listeners or readers to believe that students are no longer responding to traditional methods and if they don't go 1 to 1 their students will somehow become ignorant cave dwellers, forgotten by society.

Student learning hasn't changed, just the tools and amount of information available. After the invention of books, teaching changed; after paper and pencil became more available, teaching changed; after schools became able to transport students, teaching changed. It is teaching methods that need to change but not because students are different, because the tools are different, society's different, methods are different. If you are one who says "students learn differently these days" please make sure your listener knows why you are saying that. They learn differently because the tools they have available are different, not because their brains processes the information in some foreign manner...Ok, we are talking about teenagers so that statement isn't totally without it's arguments but as compared to teenagers of days gone by, they are basically all the same.

Students don't learn differently, teaching just needs to incorporate and teach students to use the tools that are relevant and essential to make them competitive in today's world. I'll leave it to you to decide what those tools are in the context of what is being taught.

1 to 1 beginnings

After 3 years of teacher planning, our district has decided to institute devices for the HS and maybe the MS starting in January. I am a little concerned that they still don't have the right frame of mind. It is rather chaotic as of yet but hopefully we can pull it all together before Jan. I keep reminding them that next semester is still a training time but we'll see how well that goes over.