To Tweet or Not to Tweet

Talk about implementation dip… I wrote this blog and thought I posted it March 11… and tonight found it still in the draft…. I certainly feel dippy – still learning the blogging process with wordpress … lol… well.. here it is..:)

Following the presentation of Shem, Jeanette, John and Shannon, I would like to share my journey through Twitter using Roger Everett’s Diffusion of Innovation Theory.

One media tool I have more recently adopted is Twitter.  My husband and media were my first introducers.  Later I found out more through my Masters Course at UOIT – while researching for our Media project (with Colin) I found some Political Twitter Cartoons which commented on the 2009 situation with Iran for a class project– we discussed how important Twitter had been to get information out of countries where other means were not possible.  I was pretty impressed with the power of Twitter.



(There are a few other political cartoons shown on this blog too –


I did not adopt Twitter until I started my Masters course at UOIT.  I don’t really like social media overall – ie. Facebook due to my job and general preference for privacy.  I also don’t like the idea of people sharing silly things (unless I know them personally) – I guess the 140 character limit helps with that though.


As a user of Twitter – I am probably at the stage of late majority, though it is difficult to totally discern this while the wave is still unfurling.  At work, only a few people use twitter, while in our course everyone does. With something like this, I think that it is better for me to wait to adopt, to find out all the ins and outs of the technology or in this case twitter, than be at the forefront.  Facebook was a huge concern at the beginning for teachers, but is now becoming more acceptable and mainstream.  I found it funny when my union got a facebook page after previously suggesting that we not use Facebook. I still do not use Facebook.  I might later though.  Twitter does have the advantage of not being used by my students unlike Facebook.

I adopted Twitter because of requirements of my Masters course at UOIT (okay – my Professor made me use it.. lol).  Though pressured into it, I have found uses for it beyond my course work.  I try to read it regularly to get information- from my class peers, and others.   The tweets from the astronaut Chris Hadfield were amazing – especially the photographs and videos.  I was able to share these with my class by attaching my phone to my class Smartboard.  It was nice to be able to model Twitter as well.  When I was watching The Agenda on TVO online while it streamed live, it was pretty amazing that I was able to read the shared ideas of the audience and have the opportunity to respond to what was being said at the time… kind of like our chat option in Adobe Connect when we have classes for our Masters.

Professionally, our school board does not really utilize it as a communication tool.  Email continues to be the main focus of transfer of information. FirstClass – is a rather archaic email system that we must login to each time we want to read our mail – they will not allow us to set it up on our phones to go directly to our inbox.  New conferences seem to come and go – without much notice – as there is nothing to alert one to the changes.  Using twitter would allow for faster and more succinct information transfer – hashtags about particular subject areas you might want to pursue, or projects you might be involved in.  


The problem is that everyone can read your posts – should more control of who sees what, like some of the controls on Facebook would help with its use professionally – I am not sure if that would go against the good sharing ideas of Twitter.


So.. in 140 characters are less…

Diffusion of Innovations -Twitter– late majority– reluctant social media user- academic pressure to use – regular use – variety of applications – pretty cool 🙂

Okay.. I might have used a few more characters..:)


Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

My Adoption of Digital Technology

>I may not have gone where I intended to go, but I think I have ended up where I intended to be.”  Douglas Adams

My Adoption of Digital Technology.

My parents were a huge positive influence on how I responded to technology.  They always had a positive outlook on technology being a tool. Since childhood, I have embraced technology in the many professional and personal roles I have undertaken. 

In my third year of teaching, I taught Design and Technology to Grade 7/8 students.  Creative Learning Systems designed a program (Lab 2000) where students rotated in triad groupings of technology – teachers acted as facilitators.  The stations ranged from pneumatics, electronics, to computer 3D rendering, webpage design, sound editing, stop motion, and much more.  Apple and Dell Computers were used. Imagine a scaled down, gym sized version of a TechShop*.  Perks included training in California and our own lab.  That was an incredible learning and teaching opportunity, that continues to affect me.

>We live in a society exquisitely dependent on science and technology, in which hardly anyone knows anything about science and technology.”  Carl Sagan

“An important factor regarding the adoption rate of an innovation is its compatibility with the values, beliefs, and past experiences of individuals in the social system. “ Everett Rogers, 2003.

Where I am Currently

When asked to describe my present level of adoption of technology… Where do I stand?  It depends. I do not stand in one place on this continuum of adoption though there are patterns.

In my personal life, I find my stance on the adoption of digital technology the most variable. From the ideas of Everett Rogers in “Diffusion of Innovations” (2003), I would classify myself as – most of the above – from “Early adopter” to “Laggard” depending on the technology.


>The true delight is in the finding out rather than in the knowing.” Isaac Asimov

Working through the Innovation Process

process of adoption

 I choose to explore new things building my own knowledge.  When I hear about online resources that might be of use, I like to check them out. When they pass scrutiny and are compatible with what I am looking for, and will work for me, I am likely to adopt them. Current advancements such as ITunes U, Google Scholar, Youtube, and options such as being able to do my Masters of Education online, open more doors to make this possible.

>“Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known.” Carl Sagan

 In the same way that I can choose what I want to learn, I choose not to learn about certain things as well… such as the TV controls.  If I see a need, then I will learn. I do not want to spend time learning and using Facebook – as I like my privacy.  Rejection is not always permanent if the technology becomes pertinent.

 Generally, if technology is expensive, I am reluctant to purchase early on – I would rather find out more about it, and determine if the tool will be of sufficient value and adopt it later.  I choose to research about 3D printers rather than buy one right now, because I do not want to spend the money on it – I think it will be a “windloss” (Rogers, 2003).  The 3D printer sells for thousands of dollars today, it will soon sell for much less.  I am lucky to have the opportunity to choose the technology I want to pursue.

 There will always be technologies that I do not understand – I feel is more a product of time and inclination than anything else.

>It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent that survives. It is the one that is the most adaptable to change.” Charles Darwin

In my Professional Life, with respect to technology adoption, I am in the stages of “Early Adopter” to “Early Majority” (Rogers, 2003) – though perhaps this is more a trend of what is happening in our schools than the global professional market.  I find that while I am working through the stages of adoption process (Rogers, 2003), I am utilizing the current available technology my school board provides, I am often trying to diffuse information – sharing ideas and applications of technology with my peers. 

 “More than anything else, it was the social power of peers talking to peers about the innovation that led to adoption of the new idea.” Everett Rogers, 2003.

 At times, I would like to be able to reject platforms such as the report card and IEP data bases, I am expected to work through the inadequacies of the formats (continued adoption).

From my UOIT peers, I first learned about the TP(A)CK and SAMR models, and later uncovered more from the lectures of Dr. Ruben Puentedura – who in his iTunes U presentations, has outlined a more in depth view of these models.  In looking at the Puentedura’s SAMR model, and his discussions, I am able to touch upon all levels of the scale in my teaching, though I would like to do this more consciously.



 My Target Level

 When I started my masters, I had no idea what I wanted to pursue, though assistive technology and gaming were areas of interest, as both are generally not well received in schools.  For this assignment, I will talk about Gaming in Education.

 Our (excellent) classroom presentations and the opportunity to research the ideas of Everett Rogers, Kurt Lewin, Puentedura, and the creators of the TPCK model, has given me more insight into what I want to target.

force_field_analysistpack image

Ideally, I would like to be able to hit the ‘bullseye’ of the TPAK model – effectively applying Technological, Pedagogical Content and Knowledge to my teaching.  I find that our school district seems to focus on Pedagogical Content and Knowledge as do most of my peers. The iTunes U podcast by Ruben Puentedura (2003) has given me some ideas.  Although this is an older resource, I still think that it is a good place to start.  As well – our school board has recently asked for suggestions to use technology in our school – I have proposed some studies of educational games to improve problem solving.  This has not been approved at this point – stay tuned.

 I am not sure where this will lead, but I am intrigued, and guaranteed to learn more about gaming in education.  It should be a fun learning experience!

>;You can’t help getting older, but you don’t have to get old.” George Burns


 Covey, S. (1997). Work it out together. Incentive, 171(4), 26-26. Retrieved from

 Jagoe, Colin, YouTube (2011). Force Field Analysis. [online] Retrieved from: [Accessed: 24 Feb, 2013]..

 Kruglanski, A. W., Bélanger, J. J., Chen, X., Köpetz, C., Pierro, A., & Mannetti, L. (2012). The energetics of motivated cognition: A force-field analysis. Psychological Review, 119(1), 1-20. doi: (1998). THE UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY. [online] Retrieved from: [Accessed: 1,Mar 2013].

 Puentedura, Ruben, iTunes (n.d.). TPCK and SAMR: Models for Enhancing Technology Integration –  As We May Teach: Educational Technology, From Theory Into Practice. [online] Retrieved from: [Accessed: 25 Feb 2013].

 Puentedura, Ruben, iTunes (2003). TPCK, SAMR, And Games – Game And Learn: An Introduction to Educational Gaming – Audio/video. [online] Retrieved from: [Accessed: 25 Feb 2013]

 Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations. New York: Free Press.


 The TPACK Image “Reproduced by permission of the publisher, © 2012 by”

 A Model of Stages in the Innovation-Decision Process (Rogers, 1995)

 Technology discussed on SAMR diagram

 Google Art Project –,  Flow, the Art Zone-,  Sumopaint –,  The Artchive-


*TechShop Detroit – Allen Park

“TechShop is a playground for creativity. Part fabrication and prototyping studio, part hackerspace and part learning center, TechShop provides access to over $1 million worth of professional equipment and software.”” TechShop is a community based workshop and prototyping studio on a mission to democratize access to the tools of innovation. This brand new location is packed with cutting-edge tools, equipment, and computers loaded with design software featuring the Autodesk Design Suite. Most importantly, TechShop offers space to make, and the support and camaraderie of a community of makers.”

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

SAMR Model applied to StopMotion Technology in the Elementary Classroom

One of my favourite things to have my students create are stop-motion animations. The technology has certainly evolved as has the things that we can do now around this idea.

Using Puentedura’s SAMR model  – we can see how technology has been used to enhance then finally transform the possibilities.

Previously – used quickcam to record stills attached to computer.

Enhancement Levels

a)    Substitution – Use of iphone to record stills – smaller, more mobile, more accessible, files easy to send to computer

b)    Augmentation– iphone app- STOPMOTION- students can create a stopmotion recording by selecting either personal control of shots, or by selecting timing of shots.  File can be saved as a recording.  

Transformation Levels

c)    Modification – ease of use, availability of technology allows for students to totally control recordings.  In turn, this allows for more development of complex story line development, with ongoing revisions/edits to their ideas, and analysis of movies created using stopmotion.  Students are able to share their projects with each other. Teacher takes files and puts into class production.  (Did this last year with the students in the grade 5 and grade 6 classes)

d)    Redefinition –Students take idea of stopmotion to record what they were doing when designing digital art projects: This year, my grade 5/6 class is creating digital art portfolios, showing some of their work in class and on the computer (awesome website for elementary art students – The Art Zone), and are putting it together in Moviemaker (naming their art pieces, and adding music).  I showed them a piece of software to collect snapshots of their works.  When discussing this with them, I expressed disappointment that we did not have anything on their desktops* to record the artwork created on FLOW – the one website that allows students to create moving sections of their created symmetrical patterns.    A student in my class, suggested that we take the digital recording tool in SMARTBOARD tools to gather this recording.  Students are now taking the idea of the stopmotion recordings and applying them in this new context to record the making of their digital art project.


*While I can download recording tools like Jing, students are not able to generally download anything like this on their desktop images.”

Some notes on the side…… 
Beautiful music video using stopmotion.. if you have a few minutes.. you might want to see it.  My classes loved it and is adult friendly (lol)! The photo shown is from the video.

 Oren Lavie – “Her Morning Elegance” (2010)


Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Dr. Ruben Puentedura talks about TPCK, SAMR, And Games – iTunes U

I like looking at iTunes U sometimes to see if there are things that I might be able to use in my classroom.  Having an interest in Gaming in Education (not a big surprise to those who know me) – I stumbled across “The Maine Dept of Education – Game and Learn: An Introduction to Educational Gaming.”  In this series, Dr.Puentedura discusses a variety of related topics such as “What is a Game”, to things like “Games and Assessment”.  His last presentation is “TPCK, SAMR, And Games.”  This podcast – complete with audio and slides of his ideas – related perfectly to our terrific presentation from my peers last week!  I really liked the links that he gave as well.  Check it out:)

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

My one worry about the CBAM model and technology is the amount of time it suggests is important to implement the change.  The turnaround with technology currently is so quick, that the technology being studied might be seen to be archaic by the time the study is concluded.  Perhaps this model is better for studying systems that show more linear growth (i.e. reading strategies/phonics).  Educational technologies historically and more recently have been exhibiting exponential growth.  This can be seen with the explosion of social media technologies and mobile devices.  Some technology has been changing what is possible to do or learn as well.  Technology education is also beyond the classroom – the world is the educational stage.  Perhaps this model is no longer appropriate for the future studies of technology and education.

Aside | Posted on by | Leave a comment

CBAM- in an Elementary School

As part of our course, we were asked to examine the CBAM model.  We were then asked to describe one instance or example of how this model could be used to analyse a change within your own workplace using a technological education example.

Here is my proposal:)



Elementary school (K-6)

– Student Population 70 students

– Teaching staff: 5 full time, 2 part-time

– Support staff: 1 Child and Youth Care worker, 1 Educational assistant, 1 Early Childhood Education worker

– Technology use in special education has already been identified as an area of concern by staff

– Estimated timeline – three years to five years to allow for addressing of staff needs, professional development and other parts of the CBAM process to develop

Target: – Effective use of Assistive technology by students throughout the day to improve student understanding and daily performance in keeping with IEPs.

YEAR One: September

Stage 1:  Stage of Concern

a) Identify and address teacher and support staff (Child and Youth Care Worker or Educational Assistant) concerns and feelings about assistive technology use.  Generate a profile of concerns from computer-based questionnaires given to teachers and administrator to determine where everyone is.. from unconcerned to feeling like they are able to rework things to help students with the assistive technology.  Provide time for teachers to do this.

b) examine and analyze results to see how staff can be supported both as individuals and the group as a whole.  This could be in the form of mentorship, instruction, modeling or other ideas generated.  Look at funding available to make this possible.

 Stage 2: Level of Use

Determine the level of use of the technology in the classroom – from non- use to renewal phase of behaviour by the teachers/support staff.  Interviews and time in the classes would be the most effective to look at how the technology was being used to further help the staff with using the software.

Stage 3: Innovation Configuration

– In PLC (Professional Learning Committee of school), discuss with all teachers and principal ,ideas of what we would like to see with respect to practices of students and their use of assistive technology in the classroom – for example: Premier Tools – Talking word processor.  Create the Innovation Configuration (IC) an IC Map.

 Determine ideal, acceptable and unacceptable configurations with this model as a staff. Determine possible variations and assessments of the set.

Example IC Map – major components of this process




– Daily use of TWP in Language Classes

– teachers would plan lessons with TWP in mind

– technology would work consistently and would be available as needed

– materials for the TWP would be readily available for staff to use with students

– support staff member able to scan materials or photocopier set to scan to text

–  teacher and fellow students would be able to support student in using this software

– regular use of TWP in Language Classes

– teachers would plan most lessons with TWP in mind

– technology would work consistently and would be available as needed

– a number of materials for the TWP would be available for staff to use with students with a support staff member able to scan materials or photocopier set to scan to text

– teacher and fellow students would be able to support student in using this software

– no or intermittent use of TWP in classes

– no planning with TWP or assistive technology in mind

– technology not always working or available

– no pre-done materials or support/technology to scan materials into computer

– teacher unable to help student with TWP


 Set goals as to where we want to be at the end of June on the IC Map.

 Post EQAO (end of June)–

Every June students in Grades 3 and 6 are required to complete the EQAO standardized test.  Those with IEPs that stipulate assistive technology use, are able to access software this to help them in reading (Language and Math booklets), and writing activities (Language only) as appropriate.  Unfortunately, elementary teachers are not able to use this test as an assessment piece – however, being able to use the technology well does help the student.  At this stage, students should be at their peak for the year to use the technology.  It is at this point that we would re-administer questionnaires from the Stage of Concern stage to see if these have changed for staff members, and to see what could be implemented at the beginning of September.  Interviews and observation of practice could also be done at this point to determine if there is change.



Offer Stage of Concern questionnaires to new staff at school and to all others.  This would be done in case staff had taken extra courses or opportunities that may have altered their stage of concern.  The Level of Use would also be determined for these individuals.

PLC Technology Discussions:

–       re-examine the purpose of the IC Map

–       Set goals as a staff as to where we want to be at the end of June on the IC Map.

–       re-examine how to support staff, and to determine if opportunities that have already been set up need to be changed or tweaked to get the “ideal” situation occurring

 Post EQAO (end of June)– re-administer questionnaires from the Stage of Concern stage to see if these have changed for staff members, and to see what could be implemented at the beginning of September.  Interviews and observation of practice could also be done at this point to determine if there is change.

 As a PLC – Examine each year what has been helpful and what has not.  Determine new problems and where we need to go next to meet the goals.


In a PLC – Determine if this model was effective to having this process work.  Discuss other possibilities of a Project the following year.

Note about the technology:  It is quite possible that the technology would change so much that the assistive technology in the classroom would look quite different that it does now… and might be more intuitive, and easy to use for the learning disabled student.  Ideally, school software would be designed more to meet the needs of all users (universal design).   This would of course be not only an element of the technology but also the affordability of the software for the schools (i.e. Kurzweil is currently superior to Premier tools, but it very costly and is only given to eligible students).  Should the technology change, then the Innovation Model would have to be changed to reflect this new technology.  Until that time, teachers need to be able to use the assistive technology in their classrooms and to support students in their use of it each day.


Resources examined

a) The Concerns-Based Adoption Model (CBAM): A Model for Change in Individuals. Reprinted with permission from the chapter entitled ” Professional Development for Science Education: A Critical and Immediate Challenge,” by Susan Loucks-Horsley. National Standards & the Science Curriculum, edited by Rodger Bybee of the Biological Sciences Curriculum Study. Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Co., 1996. For more information call 1-800-KH-BOOKS (542-6657).

B) The Concerns-Based Adoption Model (CBAM): A Model for Change in Individuals –

 C) Introduction to the Concern-Based Adoption Model (CBAM) (February 24, 2011) Series of four Videos by SEDL –

 d) “Hall and Hord’s (1987) Concerns Based Adoption Model (CBAM) is a notable example of a Macro (Systemic Change) theory of diffusion that is instrumentalist, rather than determinist, in philosophy. Hall and Hord describe a process in which change facilitators understand change from the point of view of the people who will be affected by change. The idea of CBAM is to bring about systemic restructuring by understanding the social, political, and interpersonal aspects of the school.” 

Surry, D. W., & Farquhar, J. D. (1997). Diffusion theory and instructional technology. Journal of Instructional Science and Technology, 2(1), 24-36.

 e) Hamel, C., Turcotte, S. S., & Laferrière, T. (2013). Evolution of the Conditions for Successful Innovation in Remote Networked Schools. International Education Studies, 6(3), p1.

Posted in Uncategorized | 3 Comments

Dips on the road – Learning to drive a standard vehicle

The Implementation Dip…

         Having read through the blogs of my peers, I am ‘glad’ to hear that taking the Masters Program was part of an Implementation Dip for some, as was the adoption of the smart phone.  Misery likes company I guess.   


Dips on the road – Learning to drive a standard vehicle

         Having been an east end Toronto girl – I never drove.  Throughout my high school and university days – I took the TTC everywhere or got drives from friends or family as needed.  When I got my first job as a junior archaeologist in a consulting firm in Toronto, it was better not to be able to drive, silly though that might sound.  We made hardly any money, and one of my co-workers, the only one who had a car, was expected to drive us to different locations to work.  Sometimes we had to pay him gas money to get to places.  The things you do when you are excited to be ‘real’ but quite poor archaeologists. 

         Years later, after my husband and I got elementary jobs teaching east of Toronto, I needed to get my license.  Our first non-automatic vehicle was a Suzuki sidekick.  I remember it well… the Implementation dip…  the anxiety of hills, the stalling, the fact that I was in my mid 20s and was just getting my license, the practice nights after work, the self coaching… etc….  My husband was terrific through it all, and was greatly supportive.  I had to drive it everyday after I dropped him off at work, so I got quite proficient at it.  We have automatic vehicles now though 🙂

The Implementation dip of students

The video that Francois made on Implementation Dip… has had me thinking more about the implementation dips of my students as they learn new technology, especially those that experience learning disabilities. 

Sometimes the anxiety is so great for them that they are not able to step forward and achieve what they know and have seen will improve their performance.  I am thinking of one student in grade 6, who is very reluctant to use any assistive technology on the computer even though he has been shown and has had a chance to see what it will do for him once he masters this skill.  Dragon and Premier are not very easy programs for young students – but they are free for students to use in school.  Premier is available to take home, but it is unlikely in my area that the families of my students would know how to set this up or get it moving.    I have been trying to get him to use his iPod touch more for these purposes and he seems to embrace this technology better. 

         So… it got me thinking about how different people of all ages cope with their anxieties to get through the deconstruction stage to get into the transformation phase.  

I was also thinking about the differences between imposed learning situations and those that are self-directed. 

Lots of pondering…

Posted in Uncategorized | 3 Comments