In one of our short breakout sessions in considering SAMR scale questions I made the comment that I did not wish to teach technology for the sake of technology. A member in our group was struck by that. After I finished my thought, she asked what I had meant by my comment, stating that she faces a similar mentality at her site, and in our profession, quite frankly. After hearing my words restated, I understood her reason for flagging my remark. In her experience, some teachers, especially those with decades of experience, reject the idea of introducing new technology or the application thereof into their teaching. This can be for multiple reasons, the more obvious being the enormous task of taking on and synthesizing something new and/or the notion that it is a waste of time. And I suppose that, given the latter sentiment, she was not too far off in her analysis of my statement.
When we were discussing the lessons for their level of technological impact, we found ourselves, other sites included, disagreeing to some degree. As we move up the SAMR scale, what seems to develop is how technology has facilitated and altered a lesson. There were several occasions when participants disagreed on a facet of a lesson that was either Substitution or Augmentation, Modification or Redefinition. As I considered this, and flip-flopped while I listened to others, it became more clear to me. The SAMR model and technology in the classroom should at least practically and at best philosophically improve a memorable learning experience for a student. How is this application better helping my student understand the standard of focus? What I found was I would perhaps overestimate the impact of the technological component. It seemed to me to be a slippery slope.
This is why I said, "I do not want to teach technology for the sake of technology," at least through a SAMR lense. For example, Polaroid cameras were a modern marvel. They redefined photographs by way of appealing to our impulsive nature to see our pictures immediately... well, almost. I would not consider, however, their employment in a lesson to be anything more than a Substitution for a drawing. Camcorders were amazing. In an affordable fashion we could film something and play it back, copy it, share it. Now I can't implement this technology because it doesn't communicate with anything made after 2001. So, is it important to teach technology? How it was made? What its intent and effect was? The conditions which brought it about? Of course. But when we consider the impact of technology on an "everyday" lesson, we should not simply settle for word processing our final drafts. I mentioned to my DALLA partner that the way she interpreted my statement didn't even occur to me. "Technology is like air," I said. "You can't avoid teaching it; you are surrounded by it. These students are of a different time. We're learning it; they're living it." Obviously we word process. Even that sounds antiquated. It seemed to me that some things didn't need to be said.
What I am noticing is that with time, everything is replaced by inspiring the next application (or generation), some which will redefine our lessons, teaching, and impact. As Isaac Newton said, "if I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants." Perhaps I wasn't that far off in my first-ever blog title, "The DALLA Continuum."
