ICT Frameworks for Classroom Implementation

Choosing which technological platforms to include in the classroom can be a daunting challenge. Thankfully, comparative frameworks such as the "Triple E" and "SAMR" models make decision-making easy.

Over the course of the COVID-19 pandemic, concerns surrounding student engagement have risen to unprecedented levels. Thankfully, technology provides opportunities for new and exciting modes of instruction, especially when conducting classes digitally! The biggest challenge for teachers lies in choosing which platforms to utilize in the delivery of their classes.

While technology can offer countless possibilities for student engagement and creative growth, it also has the capacity to distract students from their work. That's why it is important to discern where a certain piece of technology fits inside the workings of your classroom culture. Join me, as we explore the following two tech-implementation frameworks: Triple E, and SAMR.

First Impressions

No. 1 - Triple E: Engage, Enhance, Extend

Created by Dr. Liz Kolb, the Triple E Framework is "designed to help educators measure how well they integrate technology tools into instruction" while simultaneously ensuring that "technology use supports student engagement." In addition to promoting student engagement, the Triple E Model aims to enhance and extend learning through the use of technology.

The Triple E Framework is divided into the following four steps:

1. Define learning goals.

2. Select an appropriate technology tool.

3. Engage students with the tool by having them be active and social learners.

4. Use technology tools to connect what students are learning with real-world tasks and contexts.

Dr. Liz Kolb's Venn diagram provides a visual representation of varying levels of technology use.

• Letter A represents activities where technology is in use, but no integration is occurring. (Students complete a worksheet activity that the teacher printed from the computer).

• Letter B represents activities where students are engaged while interacting with technology. Students go from being passive learners to active learners.

• Letter C represents activities where student learning is enhanced by technology, through scaffolding, differentiation of instruction, and personalization.

• Letter D is characterized by the extension of tasks through the use of technology.

No. 2 - SAMR: Substitution, Augmentation, Modification, and Redefinition

Designed by Dr. Ruben Puentedura, the SAMR model "categorizes four different degrees of classroom technology integration." Standing for Substitution, Augmentation, Modification, and Redefinition, the SAMR model enables educators to utilize "a common language across disciplines" as they work to differentiate instruction and personalize their students' learning experiences.

"The SAMR model can be especially powerful during remote and blended learning when integrated classroom technology makes teaching and learning a more seamless experience for educators and students." - PowerSchool

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SC5ARwUkVQg

My Winner: the SAMR Model!

While both the Triple E and SAMR models provide excellent opportunities for streamlining the implementation of classroom technology, the SAMR model "takes the cake" in my books.

My reasoning for this choice is as follows: SAMR's levels are more clearly defined than the generalized (and often overlapping) categories of the Triple E framework. Additionally, I like how the SAMR model is formatted in a tiered fashion, rather than an over-lapping ven diagram with subjective gray areas falling between categories.

The following diagram illustrates how the SAMR model provides clear and concise definitions for each level:

In addition to the clearly-stated nature of SAMR, Dr. Ruben Puentedura created a useful list of reflective questions that aid in discerning where technology fits within the framework. I appreciate Dr. Puentedura's thorough approach, and I can see myself referring to these questions often as a future educator.

The respective questions for each SAMR level are as follows:

Substitution:

• What will I gain by replacing the older technology with the new technology?

Substitution to Augmentation:

• Have I added an improvement to the task process that could not be accomplished with the older technology at a fundamental level?

• How does this feature contribute to my design?

Augmentation to Modification:

• How is the original task being modified?

• Does this modification fundamentally depend upon the new technology?

• How does this modification contribute to my design?

Modification to Redefinition:

• What is the new task?

• Will any portion of the original task be retained?

• How is the new task uniquely made possible by the new technology?

• How does it contribute to my design?

Conclusion

Choosing what kinds of digital tools to include in the classroom may be a challenge, but the SAMR model offers an intuitive pathway for improving student learning with appropriate educational technology!