Conversation - the Gaping Hole in Social Media Learning Networks

I can't believe I'm saying this - me - a type D personality on the DiSC Personality test - a "do-er".  Well here you go world - I'll even put it in writing.

I need a little more conversation over here.

Tasked with building a personal learning network through social media, I have to tell you - I was psyched.  I LOVE Twitter chats.  Sitting on my couch in my pjs, while the husband watches 1970 sci-fi flicks, I can engage in dialogue around educational leadership (#DLNchat). I love surfing Twitter to catch up on emerging "awesomeness" reading posts from @Getting_Smart. I couldn't wait to see what else was waiting for me in LinkedIn, Google+, and Facebook.

Google+
Prior to searching out a personal learning network, I used Google+ to share class photos with families and colleagues.  As the ugly step-sister in the social networking world, Google+ served as a quiet media outlet where all of the other important posts of the day wouldn't bury the fun images of my students engaged in project-based learning.

I'm sad to say my reluctance was only reinforced when the first group I joined turned out to be a middle-eastern sales ploy with posts on obscure technology devices.  The group had 34 thousand members.  How could that be a scam?

So, I decided to look for people instead of groups.  Again, disappointment loomed.  These really amazing people I found could be sorted into two groups.  One group made a big splash of posts never to be heard from again.  The other group is full of people on their soap boxes.  No one asked provocative questions to spark conversation.  No one posted looking for ideas.  Google+ was a real minus in my book.

LinkedIn
"Look at me!"  If I remind myself that PLN is personal - LEARNING-network not personal SOCIAL network, I am able to engage with the interesting reads that land on my LinkedIn feed. TeachThought posts regularly and the content is outstanding.  I get excited when I see their logo appear on my screen.

Just in the last week, I decided to branch out and post articles that I found on other sites instead of only "liking" and "sharing".  This "bold" move brought a few more connections my way, but it left me feeling like something was missing.  It was great for the ego that others like my ideas, but where are those who want to have a conversation about the post?

Facebook
With more than one BILLION Facebook pages, I was confident that I would find people willing to talk in this venue.  I am a member of a group called "Teacher Idea Sharing", but it has been quiet since last year - seriously, not a single post since October of 2016.  It generated a few good conversations, but I guess like all non-essentials: out of sight, out of mind.  So, I sought new groups and sent join requests to two (Teachers Helping Teachers Grow and Instructional Designers in Education).  As of the writing of this blog, however, I haven't been accepted Instructional Designers, but I have fallen in love with Teachers Helping Teachers...

What, So What, Now What
In short, after a week or two of trying to make new friends, I'm going back to my old hang-out: Twitter. Folks who tweet are friendly, frequently willing to engage in discussion, adept at maintaining momentum and darn it, they just plain like me.  For anyone reading this blog hoping to glean guidance on building his/her own PLN, my advice is to think about your learning style.  If you just want to read and process on your own, LinkedIn and Twitter offer current and relevant reading material.  If you want to socialize and are willing to be patient to find the right group (Goldilocks style), Facebook has great potential.  For those who are social learners and need to talk to process content, come hang out with me on Twitter (@outofboxed), we can learn together!

Hungry for the Truth

"Reeses Peanut Butter Cups to Be Discontinued by Hershey's Before..."

Have you seen a headline like that recently?  Not only did I see it in my Facebook feed, I heard morning show DJs talking about the issue.  That makes it real right?!

As a teacher, I have spent countless hours coaching students to validate information.  Look at the website address.  Investigate the author.  Beware of adds.  Research the mission of the of the website.   In short - do your research.

When the delicious chocolate, peanut butter treat was threatened in headlines and when challenged to determine "real or fake" by Dan Russell's November 2015 blog post, "Fake or real?  How do you know?", I followed my own advice.  I let Google do the interrogation.

Szerelmi gyilkosságok (3. évad) by Lwp Kommunikacio.
Made available by CC by 2.0

I read blogs of others on the search to answer the challenge posted by Russell (2015).  I opened web search results to determine whether I could trust the source.  I researched authors.  I dug and read and researched.  And in the end, I fell back on my math/science background (you can't prove theories true you can only prove them to be false).  I determined that all signs supported the artifacts as fakes.

A healthy dose of skepticism a day keeps the frauds away.

In fair disclosure, I incorrectly surmised that a quote attribution to Thomas Jefferson was fake.  In a numbers game, however, 7 out of 8 is a decent rating when tallying the number of times I was misled by online content.

So my takeaway to share?  HURRY - go buy those Reese's Peanut Butter Cups!  Not because they are going to disappear from shelves, but because in this world of fake news and Photoshop, you are going to need some sustenance to fuel you while you research to uncover the truth.

A Reese's Peanut Butter Cup, Big Cup. by Evan-Amos.
Made available by Wikimedia Commons CC0 1.0

References:

Russell, Dan (2001.November, 11) Fake or real?  How do you know? [Blog post]. Retrieved from: http://searchresearch1.blogspot.com/2015/11/search-challenge-111115-fake-or-real.html

SAMR’s "Teach Above the Line" Goal Misses the Mark

Disclaimer: While this post starts with a heading that seems to bash the ed tech model SAMR, read on to see that it is not the tool, but the use of the tool that is evaluated.

Welcome to take three of the writing of this blog - a critique of SAMR.  

Round one was soapbox slam on the tendency of this model to be used as a challenge for teachers to “Teach above the line.”  (I have a hard time with any educational challenge that doesn’t start with learning.)  

Round two, I became so buried in research trying to uncover the impetus and intent of SAMR that my work sounded more like a research paper than a blog.

Take 3 - SAMR Uncovered

With a teacher’s drive to transform education, Dr. Ruben Puentedura developed the SAMR model to help teachers understand the applications and effect of technology use in the classroom.  A relatively simple four tier system, SAMR is further divided into two levels.  

The first level of SAMR is where technology is used to adapt manual tasks (Substitution - Tier 1) and to improve upon manual tasks (Augmentation - Tier 2).  The effect size (amount of learning and growth that can be attributed to a teaching technique) is relatively low for these two uses of technology.  

The second level is where Puentedura feels real transformation exists.  Modification (Tier 3) is the opportunity for technology to totally change the way typical tasks are executed (Think blogs where peer and public commentary drives editing and revision instead of teacher-centered instruction of a hand written or even typed journal).  Redefinition, the highest tier in the second level, describes a scenario where technology opens the door for entirely new learning tasks not previously possible with textbooks and research based Internet use.

By Lefflerd (Own work) [CC BY-SA 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0)], via Wikimedia Commons

The Value of SAMR

I mentioned that research has been done to measure effect size on learning of each tier of SAMR. While this research isn’t easy to find and is not explicitly revealed in the infographic by Dr. Puentedura, the effect size increases through the progression of Substitution up through Redefinition. Effect size research can help an instructor create lessons and identify resources that will maximize student learning, and SAMR, in turn, could be used as a reminder of these effect sizes when a teacher evaluates an ed tech tool.

As a clear example of the applications of technology in instruction, SAMR can also be used to help create professional development opportunities for teachers.  The trend of micro-credentialing could occur at each tier of SAMR.  This could support the development of technology pedagogy as described in the TPACK model.  (I’ll refrain from diving into TPACK, but here is a link to a video on the topic created by educator Travis Bohon.)

The Shortfalls of SAMR

Too often, it seems that professional development in the area of ed tech leans toward how to use specific technology tools (totally an opinion, I have done no research on this). I think this tendency overshadows tools like SAMR and causes a parallax where viewers overly concerned with HOW to use ed tech tools instead of WHY to use ed tech tools see SAMR as a way to determine the worthiness of an app instead of the appropriateness of an app.  

At risk of offending the author, I’ll illustrate this shortfall with a post from Getting Smart - a website I value as a professional.  In her 2013 piece, "Using SAMR to Teach Above the Line", ed tech guru Susan Oxnevad shares her experience attempting to find a model for technology integration that would stick. Enthusiastic about Apple's adoption of SAMR, Oxnevad describes examples of her personal exploration of lesson design and technology integration using Dr. Puentedura's model. At the close of her article, Oxnevad celebrates the SAMR model and applauds a Chicago-area instructional coach who challenged educators in her district to "Teach above the line." The "line" referred to by the instructional coach and Oxnevad is the division between the Substitution/Augmentation levels of SAMR and Modification/Redefinition.  The line that delineates useful technology applications from transformative technology applications.

Teaching “above the line” ignores pedagogy which would have teachers choose tools that best support a learner.  Instead, this mantra pushes teachers to find good tools instead of finding good strategies.

Even Dr.Puentedura writes:

It is important to note that no particular "quality" label should be attached to any of the tiers. Thus, the introduction of a Tier I tool rather than a Tier IV tool may be perfectly appropriate, if it best suits the pedagogical goals at hand. (Puedentera 2003)

I’ll use the words of Associate Professor of Library & Information Science Lucy Santos Green to sum up my thoughts on this shortfall:

If the misuse of technological models hurts our ability to be effective technology leaders, then the emphasis we place on technology over pedagogy may negate our influence altogether. (Santos Green 2014)

In closing, SAMR is reference tool not an evaluation tool and learning needs to be the focus of instructional planning. I’ll leave you with a video where students explain SAMR, but leave viewers with the very important reminder, “...the ultimate outcome for integrating technology should be simple: maximizing student success.”  

References:
Puentedura, Ruben (2003). A Matrix Model for Designing and Assessing Network-Enhanced Courses. Retrieved from http://www.hippasus.com/resources/matrixmodel/index.html

Santos Green, Lucy (2014). Through the Looking Glass - Examining Technology Integration in School Librarianship. Knowledge Quest, 43(1), 36-43. Retrieved from: http://www.lucysantosgreen.com/uploads/6/8/3/3/6833178/through_the_looking_glass.pdf