I continually reflect and look for deeper understandings on what, where, and when we could/should bring technology and innovations to enhance and enrich meaningful learning. Reuben Puentedura designed and developed the SMAR Model in an attempt to elucidate, clarify, and communicate the complex nature of technology integration. For fans of the Blooms Taxonomy, like myself, this model is a simple but effective visual that allows educators to identify and understand the depth of learning taking place, and the many access points that can be made available to all learners when integrating technology.
Schools are investing heavily in technology and innovations. In 2015-16, schools in The States spent almost $12,000 per student on technology. Investment is forthcoming and I believe that educators need to be wiser with how we prepare students for the future. More is not always better. Instead, we need to invest in educators and stakeholders, to build capability, capacity, and efficacy, so integration is purposeful and meaningful. I asked many teachers at my school about the SMAR Model: I received blank looks. I asked myself why teachers, who are well versed in Blooms Taxonomy, Gardner’s Multiple Intelligences, UDL, UbD etc. are not utilizing a similar model when integrating technology?
As an educator, I believe my role is to meet each child at their level, teaching to the low floors and the high ceilings, and empowering them to be invested in their own learning. We also need to provide this support for educators. The SMAR Model may not be for everyone. It certainly has its own kinks and creases. One strength it has is the ability for teachers to use their knowledge of other pedagogical models and approaches, and transfer these skills into making sense of SMAR and the integration of technology.