Technology Integration Models

Prior to this week’s readings, the only technology integration model or framework that I was familiar with was SAMR. After some training received through my district at the end of the 2016-2017 school year, this model really made sense to me. I felt that I understood the different meanings of each of the levels. While completing the readings for this week, I also enjoyed the connection made between the SAMR model and Bloom’s Taxonomy as described on the Common Sense Education website. I thought that this connection was a great way to evaluate lessons and extend lessons to really improve the use of technology in the classroom. However, as I continued to do additional reading, I felt the RAT model made even more sense to me. I really liked how it is very similar to SAMR, but seems to be a more simplified version.  Sean McHugh states:

 SAMR is almost impossible to pronounce, in English anyway, and while it's simpler than most, it can be simpler, without, I believe, losing anything that is crucial. I don't need to wrestle with the distinction between Augmentation and Modification, seriously—is it that important?

Although I think in theory it is important to be able to differentiate Augmentation and Modification to better understand the lesson you are creating, when it comes to day to day lesson creation I think the RAT model is just as valuable. I believe that when reflecting on lesson creation being able to determine if the lesson is Replacement, Augmented or Transformed is easier and just as valuable. By determining a lesson is simply replacement reminds the teacher I can take it further, while realizing a lesson is transformed is a realization that you are truly using the technology to the best of your ability. I additionally like the additional diagram McHugh creates that continues to make the model user friendly:

R :: replacement | redundant | retrograde
A :: augmented | average | acceptable
T :: transformed | terrific | tremendous

I feel that this little chart just helps to reinforce the idea that it is not always possible or desirable to work at the highest level,  but we at lease want to augment the assignments we are creating.

            In general, I feel that my use of technology falls into the augmented category of the RAT model. I feel that very rarely or never fall into the replacement category. I really do not like to use technology for technology’s sake. I think that this mentality prevents me from falling into this lower level category. I feel that many of my lesson fall into the augmented category. I have changed lessons to improve on them through the use of technology. I feel that some of the lessons that I have created for this class will take my teaching to the transformed lesson. It is my goal to incorporate more transformed lessons into my classroom next year. I feel with the increase of technology with the district going 1:1 will make the feasibility of this easier. I also feel that to create lessons that truly fit into the transformed category requires an understanding of technology. When you truly understand the technology resources available, I think you are better able to incorporate them into your classroom and transform your lessons and take them to the higher level.

Resources:

McHugh, S. (2014, April 09). The RAT, SAMr, Transformative Technology, & Occam's Razor. Retrieved July 18, 2017, from http://doverdlc.blogspot.com/2013/06/the-rat-samr-transformative-technology.html

Puentedure, R. (2014, September 24). SAMR and Bloom's Taxonomy: Assembling the Puzzle. Retrieved July 18, 2017, from https://www.commonsense.org/education/blog/samr-and-blooms-taxonomy-assembling-the-puzzle