TPACK
According to the video above, TPACK is the overlay of technology, pedagogy and content in an individual teachers area of instruction. For instance, my personal TPACK would demonstrate how I incorporate technology into my teaching (pedagogy) in order to transmit content to my students (context).
Technological – Pedagogical Knowledge
TPK is the overlap of knowing technology well enough to know how to incorporate it into the bigger picture. How am I going to use technology so that it facilitates learning in a more encompassing way then just being a vehicle from point a to point b? Rather than being the car, I want it to be the field we are going to play on.
TPK is the overlap of knowing technology well enough to know how to incorporate it into the bigger picture. How am I going to use technology so that it facilitates learning in a more encompassing way then just being a vehicle from point a to point b? Rather than being the car, I want it to be the field we are going to play on.
SAMR Model
After creating my TPACK profile, I realized the need for a technology that would increase oral communication in L2. Based on the SAMR model, the use of Edmodo and Google Docs will augment the task by allowing students access to their work from anywhere. The task is modified so that students can give critical feedback in writing and/or voice recordings using the comment feature. The use of Google Docs will redefine the task by allowing the Canadian students to have the opportunity to work with students overseas, taking the task global (Candace M, 2014).
The creation of vidcasts redefine learning as they are a cultural exchange, opening the door to sharing and learning about different ways of thinking and engaging in daily life. They also modify assessment practices by offering a new avenue for students to showcase their learning.
The creation of vidcasts redefine learning as they are a cultural exchange, opening the door to sharing and learning about different ways of thinking and engaging in daily life. They also modify assessment practices by offering a new avenue for students to showcase their learning.
TPACK, The SAMR Model & mLearning
Due to the age of the students involved, very few own mobiles devices and if they do, school regulations do not allow them to use them in school. The definition of mLearning according to Romrell, Kidder and Wood (2014) requires mobile devices that are personalized, situated and connected in order for the SAMR framework to work to its full potential (p. 2). For the Canadian students, the teacher has to sign out the MacBook cart and then they log into an assigned computer. Because the school owns the mobile devices, students are not able to personalize their assigned MacBook due to administrative password protection. Students also are unable to take the device home with them, or access it whenever they want, which means the students are not easily and conveniently connected. In relation to the definition, my students are not able to personalize their own device, they cannot access their device whenever they desire, and therefore they are not connected.
Romrell et al. argues, “The SAMR model, while helpful, is still very subjective. Using the dual lens of the proposed mLearning definition with the SAMR model provided a useful overlap that highlighted the implementation designs most likely to transform learning (p. 12)." The question then becomes, how does the teacher incorporate an even overlay of the different segments of TPACK while at the same time trying to achieve the highest level of SAMR, when mLearning is not easily achievable?
I argue that it is up to the teacher to engage the students and that by doing so they can engage the community. In Ham and Schnabel (2011) article, they mentioned the use of a ‘mobile Skype lectures’ where students had access to people of interest who could “conduct site visits and relay video and sound footage live to the classroom (p. 111).” Previous experience has shown that when students are highly engaged in the project they begin to do some of the work independently at home. A combination of student buy-in and parent access via a blog or an online classroom, can get parents just as excited as the students and they too begin to participate in the project. If parents and students work together, the students will have access to personal mobile devices outside of school hours. This would allow them to take pictures, videos and sound clips in places of greater significance and interest. For example, the Cathedral in the middle of the square in Cardedeu that holds great significance, meaning and value for the community. The Canadian students will not have access to this particular cultural artefact if not for the personal mobile devices of the Catalan students.
Another interesting point brought up in Romrell et al. article was, “For mLearning activities at the substitution or augmentation level of the SAMR framework, the increase in technological obstacles presented by the use of a mobile device may prove too cumbersome to justify the use of the mobile device. However, for mLearning activities at the modification or redefinition level of the SAMR framework, the increased technological obstacles will most likely be outweighed by the added benefits of mLearning activities (p. 10).” Due to the potential of this project to increase students literacy skills and open up a cultural exchange, it is worth the teacher's time and patience to activate and set up each students Google account.
It is important that, “if the mLearning activities are not included in the graded assignments and assessments of the course, students are less likely to take full advantage of the learning opportunities they provide. In addition, the instructor of the course should model appropriate use of the mobile device (Romrell, 2014, p. 11).” In order for students to buy into and use the Web 2.0 technology and platforms, the teacher needs to be actively engaged with it as well, making the teacher a role-model. Teachers also need to hold students accountable through the evaluation of the effective use of Web 2.0 tools and platforms by their students.
It is clear that TPACK, SAMR and mLearning overlap when reviewing and evaluating the value and effectiveness of an activity or project. TPACK is the teachers personal profile of strengths and areas for growth for technology, pedagogy and content. SAMR is how the teacher uses technology to enhance and further learning, and mLearning is the use of personalized, situated and connected mobile devices that influence the effectiveness of the SAMR model.
Romrell et al. argues, “The SAMR model, while helpful, is still very subjective. Using the dual lens of the proposed mLearning definition with the SAMR model provided a useful overlap that highlighted the implementation designs most likely to transform learning (p. 12)." The question then becomes, how does the teacher incorporate an even overlay of the different segments of TPACK while at the same time trying to achieve the highest level of SAMR, when mLearning is not easily achievable?
I argue that it is up to the teacher to engage the students and that by doing so they can engage the community. In Ham and Schnabel (2011) article, they mentioned the use of a ‘mobile Skype lectures’ where students had access to people of interest who could “conduct site visits and relay video and sound footage live to the classroom (p. 111).” Previous experience has shown that when students are highly engaged in the project they begin to do some of the work independently at home. A combination of student buy-in and parent access via a blog or an online classroom, can get parents just as excited as the students and they too begin to participate in the project. If parents and students work together, the students will have access to personal mobile devices outside of school hours. This would allow them to take pictures, videos and sound clips in places of greater significance and interest. For example, the Cathedral in the middle of the square in Cardedeu that holds great significance, meaning and value for the community. The Canadian students will not have access to this particular cultural artefact if not for the personal mobile devices of the Catalan students.
Another interesting point brought up in Romrell et al. article was, “For mLearning activities at the substitution or augmentation level of the SAMR framework, the increase in technological obstacles presented by the use of a mobile device may prove too cumbersome to justify the use of the mobile device. However, for mLearning activities at the modification or redefinition level of the SAMR framework, the increased technological obstacles will most likely be outweighed by the added benefits of mLearning activities (p. 10).” Due to the potential of this project to increase students literacy skills and open up a cultural exchange, it is worth the teacher's time and patience to activate and set up each students Google account.
It is important that, “if the mLearning activities are not included in the graded assignments and assessments of the course, students are less likely to take full advantage of the learning opportunities they provide. In addition, the instructor of the course should model appropriate use of the mobile device (Romrell, 2014, p. 11).” In order for students to buy into and use the Web 2.0 technology and platforms, the teacher needs to be actively engaged with it as well, making the teacher a role-model. Teachers also need to hold students accountable through the evaluation of the effective use of Web 2.0 tools and platforms by their students.
It is clear that TPACK, SAMR and mLearning overlap when reviewing and evaluating the value and effectiveness of an activity or project. TPACK is the teachers personal profile of strengths and areas for growth for technology, pedagogy and content. SAMR is how the teacher uses technology to enhance and further learning, and mLearning is the use of personalized, situated and connected mobile devices that influence the effectiveness of the SAMR model.