Earlier this year I blogged about my attempts to integrate a SAMR ladder effectively into a unit of work for Year 13 Geography. A couple of weeks ago my students sat their school examinations – the results of which were the first indication of the success, or otherwise, of this approach. Below are my final thoughts around this approach:

Upon completion of teaching, and assessing student performance in this standard it is an opportune time to reflect on the impact that the teaching changes implemented in this inquiry have been effective. This evidence will take two forms; first my own reflection, and secondly student feedback in the form of a short survey.

The original aim of this inquiry was to implement a clear SAMR ladder approach to the teaching of this unit. This happened to a certain extent, though unfortunately (as I think perhaps was to be expected) when the pressure off examinations arrived it was the redefinition task which was neglected.

Positives: The Spatial Variation component of this unit was particularly successful. Because students spent much less (almost zero) class time copying down note, I found that I could dedicate a week of class time to the activity. It was a great way to allow students to discover for themselves. I blogged about the success of this teaching here. In the student survey the class was asked “During the teaching of 3.2 you used Google Earth to investigate the Spatial Variation of TD in Queenstown. How effective was that activity?” Student responses are below:

I think that this is very good feedback and shows the effectiveness of this activity. I was also encouraged that the other two Year 13 Geography teachers invited me into their classes to do the same thing with their classes, and gave positive feedback about the effectiveness of it, it also a positive.

Impact on assessment results:

The original aim of this inquiry was twofold. On the one hand I wanted to more deliberately implement the SAMR model as a ladder during a whole topic. As discussed above I believe that I partially fulfilled this aim.

Secondly, this standard has traditionally been one where there are high numbers of SNA and N grades in the school, and NCEA examinations. This was something I wanted to address. By actively incorporating the SAMR ladder more deliberately, I was hoping to engage students in the content, and have more time to actively prepare them to achieve to their potential.

Obviously, it is always difficult, and potentially misleading to compare academic results across years. the dynamics, prior experience, and academic ability are always different, and it is hard to get a clear control group, in most cases. despite this, I feel that the results of the students so far – even when compared to the PEP for the standard; my students have performed well.

Although the Merit and Excellence grade numbers are lower than I would like – I feel very positive that there were no students who either did not attempt, or did not Achieve, the paper. It is these students who most often will choose to SNA the paper – so them tasting some success in the school examination should hopefully relate to a zero SNA rate in the NCEA examination later this month. As shown by the PEP below, this standard has relatively low rates of M and E anyway. (reminder than the SNA grades are not included here – so a PEP is always biased towards the performance of more able students.

Future Steps:

In 2017 I think that this approach is worthwhile continuing with. I think that students in my classes are beginning to respond to meaningful use of technology to support their learning. Next year I will focus more on implementing the higher order activities, and I will attempt to implement some such tasks that are incorporated into the unit, rather than as a summary task. Being a summary task this year meant that it was realistically unlikely to be completed under the time pressures of the end of the academic year – it was simply easier to return to a more tried and true revision program.

Last term I blogged about the planned use of the SAMR scale in my Year 13 Geography class. The teaching of this unit took place in the final weeks of that term, so now is an opportune moment to reflect and update the progress of this unit.

The planning of the unit reflected my desire to account for, and more fully utilise, the extra teaching time that should be released to me due to my Substitution of note taking in class, for the delivery of class notes using OneNote. Last year, my first year using OneNote, I reflected that I was not satisfied with the amount of extra teaching I was able to do to help my students apply the understanding of the material presented in class. I simply could not adequately account for that time.

Basic Unit structure using the SAMR ladder

As part of my planning of the unit, there were specific tasks that I incorporated in order to help student apply the new knowledge, rather than copy it down.

Using Google Earth to Identify Spatial Patterns

One of the most engaging tasks within this unit was using Google Earth to create a resource that identified the spatial patterns that Tourism Development has created in our Geographic Environment; Queenstown. As you know, Google Earth is awesome.

In our case we were interested in the spatial variations in the locations of visitor accommodations; specifically Hotels, Motels, Backpackers and Luxury Lodges, and attractions; both allocentric and psychocentric. A more ‘traditional’ approach would be to have students develop a paper map resource with the specific examples accurately mapped; in fact this approach may well form part of an answer that a number of my students choose to complete during their November NCEA examination. However, by doing a similar task using the Placemark feature of Google Earth, students can create a resource that is much more adaptive and maliable.

Spatial Variation in location of Accommodation

The students found the completion of this task engaging and motivating. After an initial period when a few of them wondered what the purpose of the task was, it quickly became evident to them the power of the layered approach of the data. When it came to discussing and recording the detailed reasons why the spatial patterns existed the students were easily able to create links between the location of accommodation or attractions, and the topography and infrastructure of Queenstown particularly.     

The final aspect of the task was adding this summary understanding to the map. This was done by adding a final layer of Placemarks and entering our summary information to the map. Upon completion the placemarks could easily be exported, saved, and shared as a single .KMZ file.

Sharing the Learning

A pleasing aspect of the task was the enthusiasm of the other Year 13 Geography Teachers at St Andrew’s College inviting me into their classes to replicate the task. These students were also fully engaged in the task, and the feedback from these staff was extremely positive. It was great to see a wide range of students, with extremely varying levels of experience with technology, being able to articulate the benefits of the task structure. Hopefully we will see reinforced student understanding of this content when it comes to my revision program for their upcoming examinations!