Education technology and game-based learning resources, tool tips, innovative pedagogical musings, and general "thinkalouds" of a Digital Learning Consultant. Follow my educational journey on Instagram, X , Threads and Bluesky @watsonedtech, my Facebook Page (facebook.com/edtechelixirs), and the blog hashtag #edtechelixirs. Note that opinions are mine alone, and reviews/mentions of edtech products do not qualify as an endorsement. Subscribe to the blog at bit.ly/signupedtechelixirs.
After a long, arduous and challenging school year, I hope you are finding ways to relax and recharge! Before I slip off myself to my own vacation, I wanted to slip in one more Edtech Elixirs entry before the work of next school year begins.
As I look back on my first days as an edtech cheerleader (as a classroom teacher, and then as a digital learning coach), one of my biggest regrets was being too caught up in sharing the latest fancy, flashy tool. God help me, I actually enjoyed attending, or even sometimes presenting, those auctioneer-style "60 Sites in 60 Minutes" marathon conference sessions. I was eager to capture ooo's and ahhh's from teachers by introducing a just-discovered app. As a new staff member who wanted to prove my usefulness to a district, I was glad to at least get an audience engaged by showing them something novel and new. Don't get me wrong -- I always knew that you should never use edtech for edtech's sake. But before edtech has a chance to transform your teaching, you have to agree to use it first, right?
One of my earliest edtech successes in Shelby County involved Kahoot. As part of my traveling roadshow presentations to faculty -- probably titled something like "10 Digital Ways to Assess!" or something equally cringeworthy -- I shared Kahoot, and boy, did it make an impact. Every single time after I had a schoolful of staff demo Kahoot, I would get stopped in the hallway the next day. A teacher would be nearly giddy. "My students loved Kahoot!" the teacher would rave. "They were so engaged and excited! Thank you for sharing!" And I would smile, and pat myself on the back, and practically levitate.
I regret to inform you, reader, that it took a good year or two for my self-congratulations to turn into disquiet. Teachers and students were beginning to use edtech, so the first hurdle was cleared, yes. But eventually, I had to take a hard look at whether the usage was superficial. (Of course, this is an age-old problem with teaching. To paraphrase Precious Boyle from the title of her excellent October 2020 article, don't mistake engagement for learning.)
So one day, when a brand new convert to Kahoot came bounding out of her classroom thanking me for introducing the tool, I stopped my "you're welcome's" long enough to ask a few questions. "Hey, have you had a chance to analyze the data Kahoot gives you about how each student performed, and how fast they answered? Or noticed any other assessment metrics that proved the students . . . you know . . . learned the content any better?"
"No. I mean, not yet," she said, blinking at me, and probably wondering why I was being dense at understanding her victory. "The students -- they had fun!"
I'm not against fun. Like a charismatic mold growing on the tree of education, I consider myself a fun guy. And a fun classroom is better than a dreary one. Also to be clear: getting someone passionate about edtech is not a bad thing, and if there was a failure to understand a more transformative use of a tool, the failure is on me as a coach and not the coachee. But it was at that moment I pledged to get better at teaching teachers the pedagogy of transformative blended learning. I took a deeper dive into frameworks like SAMR and never looked back. I made sure when sharing a detailed exploration of a digital tool in this blog to at least ask "How could you use it?" as a way of really saying "Why bother in the first place?" That's not to say I've arrived as an expert or gotten it perfect, but I definitely am better at recognizing that edtech without clear instructional context has no value.
With all of that in mind, I was especially pleased to come across a relatively new website, the Chromebook App Hub.
The first thing you will notice about the site is (perhaps not surprisingly, given that Google is behind it) how easy it is to search. There are multiple filters to narrow down an app to various categories (like "Assessment & Feedback" or "Math" or "Storytelling"...or checkmark several that apply), as well as age range, purchasing options, languages and more. The amount of apps catalogued are prodigious; I can almost guarantee that even a cursory search will likely come up with several tools that will be new to you. Clicking on an app will provide further info, such as the developer and helpful resources to get you started using it. However, in the spirit of today's blog entry, all of that is the least impressive thing about Chromebook App Hub. What really struck me was the Ideas section of the site, which contains teacher "Sparks" -- real lessons and practical ways to utilize the various apps to positively impact learning. These Ideas also have filters so you can search by subject, age range, and learning goals. Even better, you can submit your own Spark.
And now we come full circle back to my promise to better contextualize edtech. About a year ago, our staff developer Tracy Huelsman launched the first draft of our seven SCPS Competency-Based Core Design Principles (based on language from the Aurora Institute and 2REV). When looking through the lenses of agency, performance assessment, feedback cycle, anytime/anywhere, move when ready, equity, and clarity of mastery, where might some of our suggested edtech fit? On our district page where such edtech suggestions are kept, I have now noted which competency-based principles apply, linked to a Google Doc with more detail and resources. Let's take Kahoot as an example. It connects with performance assessment ("timely data generated from Kahoot can drive instructional choices") and equity, based on a recently launched translation feature.
Like all things, my attempt to make edtech tools merely one part of a more meaningful blended learning experience is a journey and a work in progress. So wherever you and I may take our well-deserved rest this summer, let's just pledge together to not rest on our laurels!
Like nearly all districts in the world right now, our instructional classroom model has to remain, to put it mildly, flexible. We began the school year with non-traditional instruction (NTI) with students at home. We then gave students the option of "@Home" or "@School." In some schools, the numbers of these two categories allowed a teacher to teach only virtual students while another teacher taught only the students in person. However, the reality is that the proportionality of student numbers often made such binary choices impossible, combined with the fact that a temporary quarantining of an entire classroom or athletic team made such numbers at best a moving target. More often than not, our staff have had to adapt to a new concurrent model of blended learning, teaching a roster of both @Home and @School students synchronously and asynchronously. And as of this posting, our state governor has mandated NTI to begin for all secondary Kentucky schools next week and will last until at least the end of the year (and elementary schools until at least December 7).
As educators, we are all leaning on each other to thrive and progress forward in such challenging times.
School leaders have been generous to share their thoughts, advice and expertise about teaching during a pandemic in nearly real time. The humble purpose of this entry is to throw my own hat into that ring, and to share some of our district resources as well.
Firstly, here are my top 5 tips to consider when planning for edtech in concurrent and NTI classrooms:
1. Reflect on your "learning hub" (Google Classroom, Bitmoji Classroom, learning management system [Edmodo, Schoology, Empower, etc.], website page) through the lens of your student and your parents. Get feedback from a non-educator spouse, relative, friend. Is it:
easy to find?
consistently used?
simple to navigate?
2. When using a digital tool, evaluate it through an appropriate lens. For example:
Consider your mission, vision, core values. How does the digital tool integrate with what you believe is important for student learning? For example, we have recently drafted SCPS CBE Core Design Principles, and our district page with highlighted/recommended edtech now makes concrete linkage to how these tools connect to such principles.
Think of the tool via functions of engagement, a phrase I learned from the very useful and recently published The Digital Learning Playbook (Fisher, Frey, and Hattie, pages 104-111). For example, does the tool involve finding, using, creating or sharing information? Will it enable opportunities for self-directed inquiry or for robust peer-to-peer discussions?
3. Avoid digital tool fatigue not only for yourself, but especially your students and parents.
Always remember your academic objective. If a student must spend more time learning how to navigate and use the tool rather than learning and applying content, reconsider your choice.
Start simple and slow. Better to use three tools deeply all year long than three dozen superficially in a month.
Vet every tool beforehand as much as possible from a student's perspective before implementing it in a lesson plan. A third grader may use it differently (or have different challenges) than a sophomore in high school. From the hardware perspective, will it work on the student's device? Is the site unblocked on the district's network?
4. Always make a backup plan. At some point, things will inevitably not work for some, if not all, of your students. How will they ask for help? What should they do instead if there is an issue or delay?
5. Concurrent doesn't always have to be digital work. Analog work is not only okay, but recommended occasionally for a change of pace. If you can plan a weekly system for students and parents to pick up physical math manipulatives, photocopied work kits, etc. at your school location, do so and communicate accordingly.
Secondly, with the generous help of our Staff Developer Tracy Huelsman, our Instructional Coaches, our technicians, and our teacher leaders, we have created a Shelby County Public Schools "Concurrent Classroom and @Home Dashboard Doc." This is not only a curation of various outside resources but a collection of internal ones as well, including videos/screencasts made by our staff that highlight their innovation and solutions to make concurrent classrooms effective. (Note that while most of the hyperlinked resources are open and helpful to all, some doc access may be limited to our SCPS domain or specifically apply to SCPS needs.)
Here is a video I made to briefly highlight the Dashboard Doc (7:05):
Last but not least, here are some other resources I've created.
This is a screencast video about the opportunity for students to take Virtual Field Trips that I made during last spring's NTI (38:16):
Here are some blog entries from the past year that may help:
"Nearpod, SAMR, and Transitional Pedagogy" (9/3/19; may be helpful to put NTI and Concurrent Classrooms in the context of transformational teaching and deeper learning edtech integration)
Welcome back to school! Due to a new K-8 school being built, Shelby County went to a contingency calendar and our first day back for students was today. So most of you have at least a few weeks head start on us.
Since my last entry, Edtech Elixirs has hit a happy birthday milestone. My first entry was August 1, 2014. That makes the blog five years old, with an average of a thousand views per entry (as of today, 141 entries and over 141,000 views)! Not coincidentally -- as the blog began partially as a resource for Shelby educators -- I also had my five year anniversary with the district as well. As always, I thank my blog readers for giving me the audience to share my edtech findings and think-alouds, and I thank Shelby County for allowing me to follow my edtech integration passion.
And now onto today's topic focus . . .
Back in June, I attended the third annual Deeper Learning Symposium hosted by Jefferson County Public Schools. One of the presenters was Danna Pearsall, who shared her knowledge on Nearpod. I learned about a few new features, including the ability for students to take (and then download) notes while participating in a Nearpod Presentation. These notes -- complete with the slides themselves --- can even be added to their own Google Drive! (It should be noted that the notes feature is only available if the presenter gets the paid version of Nearpod. More on that in a bit.)
An example page from downloaded student notes. This is a premium "Gold" (i.e. paid) feature of Nearpod and needs to be enabled by the teacher.
Before I go any further, I should mention that Nearpod itself feels like an old friend that I actually first tried out back in my classroom teaching days. When I came to Shelby, it was one of the earliest edtech tools I recommended to staff, and I wrote about our teachers using it in the first year of Edtech Elixirs. As much as I admired Nearpod in the past, I continue to be impressed as it grows, thrives and improves in 2019 and beyond.
What is Nearpod? Put simply, it is a teacher-paced, guided presentation tool with interactive elements that can help you assess your students in real time, as well as give you data reports to analyze later. Although you can create a presentation from scratch inside Nearpod, most will prefer importing a finished one into the platform, and that is where I want to make a tangent before discussing more about the tool itself. The real power of a tool like Nearpod is that it is a schema scaffold for tech-hesitant teachers to expand their edtech integration ability into the classroom.
How do we reflect on the deepness and richness of edtech implementation? Consider SAMR as a way of analyzing the net effect (pun intended!) of when technology is integrated into a classroom lesson:
Substitution is where new tech replaces old digital/analog tools, but the task is unchanged.
Augmentation is the same task, but there is more functionality and improvement of effectiveness because of the technology.
In Modification, you have redesigned parts of the task, and begin to see the transformative nature of the technology use.
Redefinition is the ultimate transformative experience that usually reaches an audience or collaborators outside of the four walls of the classroom. Here, we design and create tasks previously inconceivable thanks to the technology.
One of the things I love about SAMR as a reflective tool is that the focus is on the task, not the technology. There are no points earned in SAMR for mere edtech usage; it is all about integration and intentionality. As an example of this, consider Skype. When it first became a mainstream tool, it seemed like something out of a sci-fi show. (On a screen or flat panel, Skype stillreminds me of the Star Trek viewscreen on the bridge of the Enterprise.) .However, if you got a person to Skype into your classroom and just ends up a talking head that is remotely piloting a PowerPoint, how transformative is that compared to a guest speaker coming in person and droning on for an hour? You are, from a learning perspective, breaking even at best. If it is a non-interactive lecture, one would be better off with the guest shooting a video, burning it on a DVD, and mailing you the disc. (At least you could pause a DVD!) As you can see, it is not Skype itself, but the use of Skype that has to be analyzed via the SAMR lens. So it is with any technology you bring into the classroom: you need to first consider your task at hand and the academic objectives you want to meet.
The act of going from S/A to M/R means going from tech enhancement to tech transformation of what a learning experience can be, as well as going from a teacher-centered to a student-centered environment. Who is making the tech choices? Are students creating or consuming? Put another way, if the electricity and Internet go out, a S/A lesson can theoretically be improvised and continue ("I'll guess I'll lecture without pictures," or "I'll hand out a multiple choice quiz on paper instead") whereas a M/R lesson would be dead in the water.
Understanding SAMR is all well and good, and most teachers can make a Substitution move fairly easily, such as going from an overhead projector to a PowerPoint. The struggle is finding a pragmatic way to get to "AMR" edtech integrations. Here it is a question both of appropriate tools that stretch without overwhelming the educator, as well as finding a judgment-free way for the educator to grow their pedagogy. While Substitution often (but not always!) is typical of a traditional pedagogical environment (i.e. direct instruction, lecture-minded, teacher-centered), it is unrealistic to assume an experienced teacher can or even should jettison all of their former skills and tools to move into a transformative pedagogy. Indeed, there are times that Substitution (or no tech at all!) might be best, or traditional lectures and direct instruction may be necessary to properly meet the specific and contextual academic objectives at hand. The only concern is being stuck in an instructional rut of always doing Substitution/traditional approaches when other ways might be more effective or impactful on learning.
And that is why a tool like Nearpod can be a powerful tool, especially for teachers just learning to grow their edtech practice. Nearpod's original genius was its assumption that many teachers already have a storehouse of instructional material -- PowerPoints. Nearpod makes it easy to import these pre-existing PowerPoints into Nearpod Presentations. All that's left is adding interactive elements such as polls, open ended questions, "draw it" features, and quizzes. When a teacher is ready, he/she turns the Nearpod Presentation into a live session. A nice bonus: since the session will be pushed to the students' screens, you don't need a main projector or display. A student doesn't need to create an account; the teacher's live session generates a unique code only good for the current event, and a student easily joins the session with that code and signs in by providing their name. (While there are apps for Nearpod that makes it somewhat easier to join a session from a mobile device, any device with a browser and Internet access will do.) The pacing -- that is, when the slides advance -- is completely in control of the teacher. When interactive elements occur, teachers can see the data in real time, and even share a student answer anonymously to all the screens for the sake of discussion or highlighting a good model example. At the end of the live session, a final report is generated for the teacher where you can review the data/answers from all the interactive elements as a PDF. Thus, Nearpod's potential for Augmentation and beyond can be plainly seen. Students are interacting with the teacher, content and each other in new ways; a teacher can use the assessment data to impact and change instruction in real time as well as for future planning; a student can think and reflect more deeply via the interactive assessments than a Scantron bubble test could ever reveal. And imagine if, instead of Slides and PowerPoints, students created Nearpods to lead interactive presentations, or to gather data from a user group as part of a Design Thinking invention process! In short, Nearpod allows for genuine blended learning.
Here is a video which demonstrates how Nearpod led an instructor from his former mode of PowerPoint presentations and pushed him forward to a transformative classroom (1:13):
It should be noted that while the features mentioned above can all be done with the free Nearpod version, paid versions exist (currently $120 and up annually for an individual license) that give additional tools. The licensing is based on a teacher, or "creator" account -- a student participating in Nearpods never has to pay or even make an account. Additional features for the paid version include some additional interactive/inserted material elements (such as inserting YouTube videos), increased online storage space for your Nearpod Presentations (from 100 MB to 1 GB and up**), enabling the student notes feature mentioned earlier, and perhaps most importantly, the ability for students to do a Nearpod Presentation "anytime, anywhere" (perhaps personalized to student needs!) instead of only when a teacher makes a live session.
If you are interested in pre-made Nearpod Presentations, there is an online store. Thanks to a multitude of partnerships with companies such as Common Sense Media, Teaching Tolerance, CK-12, PhET, Newsela, and BBC Worldwide, the catalog is deep, with high quality lessons across a wide gamut of content and grade levels. However, while some of these are free, many of them cost from a few dollars for a single lesson up to approximately $30 for a bundle.
Other features of Nearpod that have been added in the last few years include:
Google Slides Add-On. There already was a free Chrome Extension (Nearpodize) that could take your Google Slides and convert them into a Nearpod Presentation. However, you can now easily insert interactive material while creating your Slides, then upload it all to Nearpod. From the Slides menu, choose Add-Ons > Get add-ons and search for Nearpod. Read here for more details.
Nearpod 3D. You have a gallery of over 100 three dimensional, manipulatable objects to insert into your presentation. Students can rotate them and zoom in and out. The gallery categories are Ancient Times, Amazing Places and Things, Environment, Human Body, and Microscopic. Read here to find out more.
Nearpod VR. Imagine taking your students on a virtual field trip and seeing a place in a 360 degree environment. Nearpod has an extensive amount of VR Presentations in their store -- some free, some not. Two things are outstanding about Nearpod VR. Firstly, there are incredible choices across multiple contents -- even ELA and math! (Recently, lessons were added that incorporate Historical Perspectives and Literacy, which fits nicely with new social studies standards.) Secondly, Nearpod VR works fine on any device, including Chromebooks. While phones in goggle headsets may make VR more immersive, Nearpod VR requires no special equipment or setup. For more details, read here.
The Nearpod Google Slides Add On allows you to insert activities while composing your Slides, which then can easily be uploaded / converted to a Nearpod Presentation. Note that some of these activity options only work with the paid version.
If there was a downside to Nearpod, it is definitely the price point for the premium features. While I appreciate what you get for free, and that the paid licenses have likely enabled Nearpod to endure and improve for all these years, I just wish there was a tier between free and $120+. Perhaps a middle option of $20-30 a year to allow student to take notes and teachers to give students Nearpod Presentations that are personalized "anytime / anywhere" lessons/homework?
Nearpod starts with existing edtech schema and pedagogy (PowerPoints, direct instruction, lecture) and builds upon it to create a deeper learning experience. I could mention other edtech examples that do the same, such as Google Docs, which takes what teachers and students already know about word processor programs and has the potential to improve the task of writing itself (i.e., Google Docs allows students to have real-time collaboration and use Comments for more effective peer feedback). The point here is that tools like Nearpod and Google Docs stand on the threshold between traditional and transformational pedagogy. These tools are part of a much needed bridge of a larger transitional pedagogical framework, necessary for improving not just edtech integration, but the nature of teaching and learning itself.
**Update: the storage size is updated, as of 8/14/20. As with all edtech, other elements of Nearpod described in this entry may also change over time.
As readers of Edtech Elixirs over the years have probably noticed, I'm a big fan of gamification and game-based learning in education. Often, this may involve specific tools such as Classcraft or Legends of Learning. However, bigger than a specific site or tool is the actual mindset that gaming can provide. We often talk about fixed or growth mindsets, with the latter being the obvious preferred stance for a true learner to have. In this entry, I would like to take that a step further and discuss the benefit of looking at learning through a gaming mindset.
Before we define a gaming mindset, let's take a moment to define games. In her book Reality is Broken, Jane McGonigal states that games (electronic or otherwise!) have four key characteristics:
A goal that is specific, achievable, and gives a sense of purpose.
Rules that place limitations on how to achieve the goal, which therefore unleashes creativity and fosters strategic thinking.
Feedback system, which provides in real time how well the gamer is doing and how close they are to the goal. By fostering a sense of optimism that failing forward is actually getting them closer to the goal, a gamer is motivated to continue.
Voluntary participation to play the game in a shared, cooperative space, because it feels safe and pleasurable. "Safe" assumes a culture where failure is welcomed as an opportunity to move forward; "pleasurable" recognizes that creative play has value and is not a waste of time.
It takes little imagination to see that most of these elements are integrated in successful classrooms. Students should have academic goals within their zone of proximal development -- preferably, ones they set themselves and are tracked by the learner. Standards, rubrics and deadlines are classic examples of "rules" that narrow the learning focus and outline the success criteria. We know the importance of timely feedback that is of high quality and balanced quantity. (Feedback from peers or the teacher that is delayed is often diminished; as a former high school English teacher, I eventually discovered that simply filling a paper with a Jackson Pollack constellation of red marks will shut down most students.) It is the last characteristic of "voluntary participation" that we, as educators, have to acknowledge is the Hamlet rub. Students in most countries in the world will ruefully point out that we cannot honestly call our game of school a "voluntary participation" activity -- if a student opts out, a truant officer will show up at their door. And yet, we also recognize this area is the crucial hinge where academic success for struggling or marginalized students is waiting to swing. Students that are "taught at" instead of "learning with" (student as direct object of learning, as opposed to student as an active participant) . . . students that feel isolated . . . students that have learning challenges, feel vulnerable and don't believe it is safe to try and fail . . . students that don't see any joy in learning . . . these are often the very students that need intrinsic motivation the most. So how can we create a classroom where they see the "buy in" and are willing to step forward and engage? We must make a learning environment where they are motivated to voluntarily participate, not be dragged across a graduation finish line against their will. And gaming may just be the thing to create that environment.
Let us move from the games to the gamer. What goes on inside the brain of a gamer?
Greg Toppo, in the third chapter of his book The Game Believes in You, provides a treasure trove of research that looks deep into the human mind, showing that the way a gamer thinks runs in lockstep with best practices and theories on how we have evolved and learn. The revelations are often startling and fascinating. Among other points of prestige, video gamers often have "improved visual acuity," are better at thinking of objects in three dimensions, and can focus for longer periods of time. Since our brains still have the original wiring for hunting, gathering, or fighting, we are "still hooked on 'adrenaline-generating decision making,' according to Lennart Nacke," and therefore "'our brain still wants to be stimulated.' . . . Since the modern world mostly frowns upon actual hunting, gathering, and fighting, we settle for simulations" (author's italics). These game simulations make the brain release dopamine as we succeed, but interestingly, even if we almost succeed. When games are constructed well, it is this almost-success that creates a persistent feeling of optimism. I fail, but I can start again, and I really feel I'll get it next time! "Learning theorists," Toppo shares, "would say that players have simply developed a vision of themselves as people who are about to succeed and won't let go. In the end, we try again because games let us try again. It's the rare game that doesn't let us restart our efforts at a moment's notice" (author's italics). Imagine a well designed classroom, school or district that could integrate into their learner culture such a fail-forward mentality!
Gamer brains also tap into specific strategies and outlooks -- some unique, and some similar to those used in other non-gamer roles. James Paul Gee, a linguistics and education professor, discusses in his book What Video Games Have to Teach Us About Learning and Literacy how video games capture the same "reflective process" of many endeavors such as medical practice and teaching. This four step process involves probing their environment, forming a hypothesis based on the reaction, reprobing with the hypothesis in mind, and then reflecting, or rethinking, on the results. This loop obviously repeats; with most video games, it can happen in rapidly occurring cycles. (In reference to Gee's process, Toppo tellingly points out: "[G]ame studios had also created assessment systems that could tell players exactly how well they were doing on hundreds of variables without subjecting them to multiple-choice tests.") In terms of gamer outlooks, it may be helpful to think of gamer "profiles" -- from my last entry, I almost want to call them competencies! -- in the same useful way that we consider student learning styles in order to see their strengths. A gaming organization called International Hobo Ltd based their "BrainHex" survey on neurological research and other data. What emerges is a determination of which one of seven profiles (Conqueror, Survivor, Daredevil, and so on) you tend to be strongest, illustrated in a PDF by Rob Beeson. (You might have students take the survey, reflect on the results, and right-click-save their style icon as a "badge" they can share.)
One last thing to consider before analyzing a gaming mindset is the matter of video gaming perspective.
Many video games have a third person objective viewpoint. This could be a classic interface of a "side scroller" like in Pitfall! or Super Mario Brothers (your character is always in profile) or possibly an "over and behind the shoulder" view like Temple Run, where your entire character/avatar can be seen on screen. There is also a first person subjective viewpoint, where you appear to be inside the head of your avatar and seeing the environment through their eyes, such as in HALO.
It is the synthesized thinking of many parts of the above -- along with key elements of competency-based and personalized learning -- that fed into the tool I've designed for analyzing and reflecting on a gaming mindset: GAMR.
Click here or on the image to view it larger. This is a revised version; Version 1.0 was created last year for a PD presentation.
The four levels of GAMR, and the descriptive indicators for each level from lowest to highest, are:
G: Go-Getter. Self-directed, responsible learner who expresses voice and choice in a personalized system created and guided by an instructor. Demonstrates clear initiative. Can objectively see outside of self to determine mastery and next steps. Effective collaborator who does his/her part.
A: Adventurer.Interests of the learner starts to become a major driver of instructional path. Risk taker, begins to challenge the status quo. Student sees failure as natural reflective process to try out other modes of thinking. Makes their own choices in ways to demonstrate understanding, within their academic structure; even while students set and track their own goals, teacher still provides significant instructional support. Creative collaborator who begins to push boundaries of time or space.
M: Modder.Student active customizer of content acquisition and effective in independent creation of exhibitions / capstones /assessment of mastery. Student begins to recognize networking power of affinity groups and how different outcomes require different roles. Their actions begins to have meaningful impact when working with (and for the benefit of) others. Learning is primarily the pursuit of the student’s personal passions, and teacher begins to pull back into facilitator/mentor role. Optimistic that failure will lead to success.
R: Redefiner.Student as scholar (and other roles as needed: writer, historian, scientist, mathematician, artist, etc.), fully in charge of exploring his/her own educational path. The student’s answers, findings, and solutions to real-world learning (such as PBL work) authentically impact their community and the world; collaboration in such work is not limited to immediate geography. Teacher is one of several potential sources of expertise and mentorship. Eager to fail as a process of starting again and improving. True inventor and designer who strongly demonstrates competencies for success as an independent, creative, lifelong learner.
Follow the descriptors that indicate how the role of the teacher changes from G to R, and you can begin to see the reasoning for the "third person student to first person scholar" evolution indicated on the left side of the graphic. At the beginning of the spectrum, students start with an ability to see themselves objectively, but there is still a close, fairly traditional kinship of teacher to student. As the mirroring with video game perspective suggests, the image of a teacher close by and looking over the student's shoulder is apt, even as we recognize the focus is on the student and is not teacher-centered. Between Adventurer and Modder, a significant crossing of the threshold occurs where the student takes a more meaningful ownership of the learning. By Redefiner, you have a "first person scholar" where the learning is fully situated from the perspective of the learner. As the descriptors for Redefiner explain, the change of wording from "student" to "scholar" is not merely semantic; the learner lives that scholar role, as he/she lives inside other roles (or avatars, to use some video game parlance) as needed.
Based on the name alone (and similarities like the "threshold crossing" from A to M), I obviously do not hide the influence of SAMR when I created this tool. However, while both SAMR and GAMR have a hierarchal spectrum of lower to higher, note that GAMR's lowest level (Go-Getter) begins with a type of learner we might all be thankful to have as a pinnacle for most school systems. There are two reasons for this. The first reason emerges from looking at the indicators for a Go-Getter. If average gamers did not possess at least the majority of these traits, they would never even pick up a joystick or a pewter token, much less complete a game. The second is based on a deliberate choice while constructing the tool, and in fact, is a major part of my inspiration for creating GAMR. While absorbing various texts on what gamers achieve, I realized that we may actually lower the bar by merely settling for a Go-Getter. Learners in general, and gamers in particular, are capable of more incredible feats. So while I don't dismiss the important work that gets a learner to the "lowest" level of GAMR, I am suggesting we don't stop there.
Whether intrigued by GAMR or by one of the positive attributes of a gamer's brain and mindset, I hope this entry inspires you to consider bringing games into your educational setting -- even in a small, first step way!
Resources mentioned in this blog entry, or suggestions for further reading:
James Paul Gee is one of the earliest authors to discuss the positive attributes of video games. A key book would likely be What Video Games Have to Teach Us about Learning and Literacy (2003). The book tempers neurological studies with anecdotes of Gee's own journey from non-gamer to fan.
Jane McGonigal is a passionate proponent of how gaming not only improves education, but is essential for a meaningful life. Watch her 2010 TED talk "Gaming can make a better world" (20:31), and read Reality is Broken: Why Games Make Us Better and How They Can Change the World (2011).
If I had to recommend just one book, it would likely be Greg Toppo's The Game Believes in You: How Digital Play Can Make Our Kids Smarter (2015). If you need convincing on the benefits of gaming in education, Toppo's witty and readable style (along with anecdotes and research) should win you over.
Adam Powley frequently shares his excellent insights on how he uses game-based learning and gamification in his American History class. His blog Classroom Powerups is definitely worth a subscription.
The world of education is quickly becoming a digitized place, and for some, this can be unsettling. Parents, community members, teachers and even students sometimes lament the shift away from past instructional tools; recently, a high school freshman wrote an opinion piece titled "Public education should be less dependent on technology." At the end, she quips, "Technology may fail, but pencils and pens always work." The debate is important to have for all grades, but in K-3 classrooms, this argument becomes nearly an emotional one. For our youngest students, the choice can seem agonizing. Do you fully engage them by recognizing their “real” life outside of school is constantly filtered through a digital lens, and an online workforce is their present and future? Or do you make your classroom an analog haven where traditional materials -- actual books with paper pages, physical math manipulatives, Elmer’s Glue -- give the students a digital reprieve from hours of at-home screen time?
While I won't pretend that I can definitively solve this conundrum, I offer three steps to determine a way forward.
The first asks for hard reflection. You must consider how much bang for the buck you are currently getting for your traditional “this is the way I’ve always done it” approach. Pencils and pens may never fail, but clearly across the United States, students do. Are your math and reading scores rising every year, or have they become stagnant or even declined? On any given day, are students fully engaged and actively learning, or more distracted than ever and only passively receiving content? If your current state tends toward the latter in both of those questions, recognize your present instruction is not having your expected impact, and change is necessary; you need to at least consider a different approach to teaching with additional or different (possibly digital) tools. This is a good segue into the second step: analyze nothow much you are using technology, but how you are using it. Just like any effective pedagogical tool, technology should enable students to be collaborative, creative, and critical thinkers. Two recent tweets (both of which reference TeachThought) shared to me by my colleague Lora Shields sum this point up nicely. The first uses side by side columns to show the difference between mere usage and intentional integration:
The second tweet looks at Bloom's Taxonomy verbs from a digital perspective. What are students doing with the tech? Clearly, the higher up the scale, the higher order the thinking:
The third step is to reject the either/or false dilemma nature of the question of "to tech or not to tech." A modern classroom will likely have both digital and analog tools side by side, where technology usage is not seen as a “reward” or for a special hour on Friday. It requires balance and moderation -- in short, a blended learning approach. This can take time, a growth mindset, and patience. It also requires moving the blended learning classroom from a "substitution" model-- where the pinnacle of achievement is merely digital flashcards and online dictionaries -- to a “redefinition” model where teaching is truly transformed and recentered . . . a place where students are exploring creativity, impacting their environment, and active reflectors of their own learning. If you need to see a blended learning model, look no further than Jodie Collins and her kindergarten classroom at Wright Elementary. Ms. Collins (like all Shelby K students) has a 1:1 class set of iPads. After a recent visit, I knew she would be a great person to interview about the challenges and successes of integrating technology with our youngest students.
Ms. Collins, welcome to Edtech Elixirs! Share your story. I began teaching in
2000. I taught Head Start. I finished my BA in Early Childhood Education in
2003 and continued with Head Start at Wright. In 2005 I began
teaching Kindergarten here. I went to Georgetown and obtained my Masters
in the Teacher Leader Program in Instructional Technology. Technology has
always been a love of mine. I have always loved being innovative in my teaching.
I started just by using technology in my classroom. I used to hear, “Oh, kindergarten students can’t use technology to learn.” Yes they can and they do! I
do a lot of blog reading of other teachers and technology. Technology in primary is powerful and necessary considering the world our kiddos are growing
up in!
How have you used your class set of iPads to create a blended learning
environment in your classroom? My students use iPads for different avenues of
their learning. The basic one is apps. We use apps for educational games. They
also use iPads as a listening center. They scan QR codes and listen and watch
stories being read to them. We have math stations during the week and students
will use an iPad to access the video I make to show them how to work in their
math station. They access this through a QR code I create to connect them to
the video. The video helps them see and hear the rules for the station but also
different ways to play the games and the learning targets they will be working
on while in that station! [Editor's note: if you don't have a mobile device, you can scan QR codes with the webcam of a laptop or Chromebook using The QR Code Generator website.] I also use iPads for personalized learning in
Kindergarten. Personalized learning in kindergarten? How do you do that? Yes, you heard me right! My
students are on an app called Boom Learning (Boom Cards is the name in the app
store). I created my free account and added my students. I am able to assign task
cards to my students based on their individual needs in the areas of Math, ELA,
Science and Social Studies. I can create task cards, but the website has a ton of
free task cards in their store or I can purchase decks through Boom Learning
and on Teachers Pay Teachers. My students are able to work on skills they need
and on their level. Not only does this help the students but Boom Learning
keeps reports for me to access how my students are performing on each skill. I
see their accuracy, the number of times the deck was attempted, and I can even
see the rate at which the student is answering or performing the skill. This helps me see if they lingering on a certain problem for a long time, and I can check in with them
and pinpoint where they may be struggling and intervene to help!
Some stakeholders are concerned if we are using too much technology, especially with primary students. What is
your opinion on integrating digital tools for K-3 students? How do you
balance and manage digital tools with more traditional, analog approaches to
learning? I think we are doing our students a disservice if we do not use
technology in our classrooms. That is the nature of the beast and the world
around us is filled with technology. We want our students able to use technology
appropriately and efficiently. Yes, I use a lot of technology in my classroom, but I also use pencil and paper and crayons and markers. My students are well
balanced in learning from both technology and traditional tools in
Kindergarten. We write daily, we color daily, and we are learning to type too!
What are some of your favorite iOS apps or iPad-friendly web tools? Definitely Boom Learning! I love how I can differentiate with it. I have students working on addition through 20 already even though we are not to addition in our Core Content instruction yet! I found Boom Learning to be more beneficial having the iPads and also because of the reports I get from it. I also like Splash Math, ABCya, Sand Draw, Rainbow Draw, Glo Draw. With an app called Sticky, students practice
typing words. We have just started working with a few apps on coding!
What’s a new tool or digital approach you are wanting to try out
for the first time? I want to incorporate Google Classroom but we are not there
yet! Google Classroom may work better for
iPads a little later in the year. I am definitely interested in coding and
teaching them how to code. I am looking into some LEGO kits that do just that
for the classroom!
Any advice you would like to share with other K-3 teachers wanting to
integrate edtech? TRY IT! Yes, it can be scary and yes you are going to
STRUGGLE but as [our principal] Mr. Green reminds us, it is all about the struggle! We learn
when we struggle! Do not give up and be creative. Make it work for you and your
kiddos! Thank you Ms. Collins for taking the time to interview! In closing, here are some additional resources for blended learning and tools for elementary students:
