Skip to main content

SAMR - Not a Hierarchy

Above the line and below the line is often how it is referred as, but as soon as you do that, it becomes something that has a finish - when you get to redefinition, you can go no further until someone invents a new app...

This approach negates the fact that there is good teaching and bad teaching, good learning, bad learning with or without technology. Sometimes a substitution task is the most appropriate for the learner in front of you. Sometimes you move from redefining a task back down to substituting a section of it with a google doc, for good reason; the best for the learner's needs at the time.

While what we want is for students to be determining their own learning, that is not always possible, nor what we need at the time. The idea that if we are teaching to the needs, and students are learning what the need to know, we are moving above and below the line all the time.


Popular posts from this blog

Learn Create Share

As an elearning leader we have spent a lot of time trying to put this in place at our school. We have been struggling with how to keep this direction straight with 50 or so staff and that whole bell curve of change with the early adopters at one end and the laggards at the other.  We want to pull together where we are and align it, but it is clear that how we have started this journey in comparison to the model we have taken on, does have more of an impact than I initially wanted to accept. This is going to lead us to change our methods of leadership and direction.

Generally, we need our structural conditions to change or at least keep pace with our changes in pedagogy in order to be absolutely effective in making lasting change to 'the way we do things around here'. We would usually expect this structural change to come from the top down - government policy would change, the flavour of the month in how we design our buildings would turn around, funding systems would be revise…

Writing Big Ideas in planning units of work Incorporating LCS and SOLO

Embedding stuff that we want to use because we know it makes pedagogical sense, is easily said, but how do we do it cohesively?

1) Present a format that all departments can easily use to write units of work and/or schemes for the year in a predefined course.
2) Present a way of thinking and writing 'Big ideas' and then 'specific learning outcomes', followed by essential questions and a success criteria within, that allows teachers to easily digest and re-invent their own content and teaching methods as embedded within your chosen pedagogies.
How do we write nice clear Big Ideas for our students? When we break it up it's your overall Learning Outcome, the one that holds it all together and directs your 'why' (Sinek). It's 1) a noun or thing, 2) a measurement system like blooms (but why not SOLO? -, 3) a verb that makes the noun or thing observable and therefore measurable and 4) any additional criteria that can be added to show the s…

Refreshing our google sites and trying to get everyone on board

One of the somewhat intimidating parts of being called a 'leader' in any area is those moments where you know there could be resistance, where people feel like you are always asking them to keep on doing; like maybe there should be an endpoint in an ever-evolving world. That is a contradiction in itself.

So here I am, preparing to do just that, annoy my colleagues into changing what they potentially already saw as finished, knowing that there will be the 'for goodness sake, when does it end?!' Umm, never? Nothing is static. Even Stonehenge is changing (albeit crumbling slowly away).

So here we go, adjustment time:

Is what we are doing the best of what we could be doing?
Does it fully encompass the school direction(s)?
Is it inspiring our learners?
Does it just need to be finished/started/used by your learners?

Following on from trying to find anything other than Prezi as an interesting alternative to slides or powerpoint, I clicked on this blog post from Matthew Guay: