Running Head: SAMR MODEL FOR TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 1

Using the SAMR Model in Tianjin International School 6th-8th as a framework for Technology

Integration during Peer Coaching

Iliana Lourie

KSU

Capstone Report

ITEC 7500

Dr. Judy A. Wright

Spring 2017
SAMR MODEL FOR TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 2

Capstone B Report

Setting/Context

Tianjin International School (TIS) is a private early childhood through grade-12

international school located in Tianjin, China. TIS provides a North American college

preparatory curriculum with an international emphasis. The school is accredited by the

Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC). This association ensures goals for

student learning are appropriately met. A visiting committee evaluates the school every six

years. The language of instruction is English and students receive Chinese as a second

language instruction in their regular day. Student population in the school is made up of

different nationalities including 57% Korean, 20 % U.S. American, and the remaining 23% of

various other nationalities. This project focused on the Middle School student population of

approximately 110 students. Class sizes in the Middle School range between fifteen to

twenty-two students, with support services including English Services and Special Education.

The focus on the Middle Grades agrees with Wilson & Alanizs (2015) notion that even

segments of the school staff can collectively increase the climate collegiality if they become

an integral part of life at the school (p. 15).

Students in grades 3 to 6 received iPads for classroom use in 2014 and currently

students grade 7 to 12 have MacBooks available for educational purposes. Additionally

students in grade 7th have access to two school-provided devices, including a MacBook and

an iPad. Finally, the school evaluated, and adopted a learning management system in an

effort to provide blended learning environment for their students. These are all tools and

resources that can be utilized to engage students in their learning activities and improve

student learning.
SAMR MODEL FOR TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 3

Capstone Experience

The problem TIS faced involved setting goals to establish norms and expectations in

order to maximize use of technology resources as well as to embed innovative uses of

technology in the classroom. Part of the problem also presumed a need for a systematic

process in which the school could evaluate instructional strategies and assessment methods.

This process was initiated with a single division in the school that encompassed Middle

Grades (grade 6th through grade 8th). This initial process included 14 teachers in all core

subject areas, including English, Mathematics, Science, Social Studies, and Chinese. As it

was stated in the proposal, different frameworks were implemented in order to introduce a

common language that would serve as the foundation of instruction and coaching. Sheninger

(2016) also emphasizes the importance of reliable learning frameworks to successfully embed

and fully optimize technology. This was accomplished by introducing the Technological

Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) framework and utilizing the Substitution,

Modification, Augmentation, and Redefinition (SMAR) Integration Matrix adapted by Laura

Bishop and Mickey McFetridge based on the SAMR Model and the Florida Center for

Instructional Technology (FCIT) Integration Matrix.

The researcher initially took advantage of an online workshop created for the

Professional Learning and Technology Innovation course in hopes that it would introduce

teachers to the SAMR model and TPACK framework and establish common language.

However, due to the timing of the distribution of the workshop, only two members of the

Middle School Division staff participated in it. Consequently, it was evident that a face-to-

face introduction of said frameworks would be necessary prior to the development of

strategies for technology integration. The researcher then completed a condensed version of

the online workshop to present to teachers in order to familiarize them with the approaches

the school would take for technology integration (see Figure 1).
SAMR MODEL FOR TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 4

Figure 1. SMAR. This figure illustrates the summarized presentation of the elements of

the SAMR model and the TPACK framework.

During pre-planning, the researcher was introduced to the faculty as the Middle

School technology coach that would work alongside the Information Technology

department to move in the direction of meeting the schools technology goal. In the first

divisional meeting, the researcher was able to introduce the TPACK as the framework that

allows educators to identify the knowledge they need to have to effectively integrate

technology. An even more significant accomplishment in this introductory time was

describing the importance of the SAMR model as staff members of TIS. This was an
SAMR MODEL FOR TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 5

impactful time in which many teachers became aware of our schools technology goal for

the first time and the role the SAMR model plays in it. During this meeting, all Middle

School teachers were highly encouraged to set up a meeting with the researcher to

determine a personal technology goal. Teachers were asked to complete a Technology

Integration Survey prior to the meeting in order to establish their Level of Technology

Integration as well as their specific needs. Out of the fourteen teachers in Middle School,

eight set up a meeting and participated in the survey. The remainder of the teachers were

primarily new staff who are still working through the transition process and would sign up

at a later time. The results from the survey are in accordance with those of Guzey &

Roehrig (2017) in which they found that the primary reasons preventing educators from

incorporating technology in teaching are lack of time and support, among others (see

Appendix A).

Prior to any meetings for peer-coaching, the researcher met with the administrators

and IT department in order to understand and implement further professional development

programs that can provide ongoing support. It was established that in addition to the peer

coaching that would take place in the Middle School division, the researcher would take part

in the leadership of additional professional development in the form of short workshops for

the entire school. The purpose of the workshop professional development was to increase

awareness and interest throughout the school and to establish the role of the researcher in

Technology Leadership. Subsequently, the teacher had several Teacher Collaboration

Meetings in order to determine the specific needs of the teachers. Teachers were requested

to meet with the researcher at least three weeks before they would need to implement the

strategy the researcher would share in order to provide ample time for research. During these

preliminary meetings, key questions were addressed using the Collaboration Planning Form

(see Appendix B). Some of these questions included adaptations of those suggested by
SAMR MODEL FOR TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 6

Hampton High School (2015) in their Edutopia article, which allowed the researcher to give

direction on the best tools and practices that would enhance the lesson or unit for the teacher.

Additionally, it established a relationship of trust and collaboration that is essential for

successful peer-coaching.

Some of the questions included:

How do you hope the technology will change your unit?

Can technology make this idea more relevant to students?

On what area would you like to focus? (Information Acquisition, Collaborative,

Constructive, Authentic, or Goal Directed).

In which SAMR sate do you see this lesson or unit? Where would you like to take it?

What are some challenges you envision during implementation?

Following each of the eight Teacher Collaboration Meetings, which took place between

late August and mid-January, the researcher spent time exploring specific strategies and

resources that would be relevant to teachers in their quest to enhance the units or lessons they

would be working on. This research, along with the professional development workshop lead

by the researcher, resulted in variety of tools and resources that allowed teachers to

implement technology in the classroom in order to meet their specific needs and goals. These

tools included, but were not limited to:

Integration of collaborative platforms without restrictions, such as ZohoDocs,

in classroom collaboration and data collection. This is an important tool due to

Fire Wall restrictions in the host country.

Use of real-time data through government sites for authentic learning.

Use of simulations and interactive guided practice, such as GizmoLearning or

PhetInteractive, in Mathematics to increase student independence

SAMR MODEL FOR TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 7

Utilizing digital platforms, such as EnglishCentral, to improve English

Language Learners listening and speaking skills.

Utilizing digital platforms, such as ActivelyLearn, to improve reading

comprehension by customizing instruction and providing real-time feedback.

Engage in authentic projects and global awareness through games or

communication with websites such as UrgentEvoke or PenPalSchools

Finding online collaborative professional platforms, such as Curriki, in order

to find free educational resources to support their classroom, such as lesson

plans and project-based learning.

Engaging with other educators as mentors and coaches.

After presenting these resources and tools to teachers, the researcher observed those teachers

who were able to implement them in their classroom promptly after the collaborating

meeting. Additionally, those teachers that implemented the strategies proposed by the

researcher were able to discuss the challenges and limitations and brainstorm possible

modifications. Conversely, teachers who had planned to implement after the conclusion of

this capstone project, provided feedback through an Integration Debrief survey.

Barriers and Obstacles

One of the major obstacles that the researcher faced was the current teacher workload.

Due to the schools recent evaluation, administrators are actively seeking to meet the school-

wide established goals. This translates into various professional development initiatives that

place high demands on teachers. In order to overcome these obstacles, it was important for

the researcher to have a flexible schedule for teachers and to make sure the initial meetings

were relevant to them and did not pose additional work. Because of the researchers current

responsibilities as a classroom teacher, it was sometimes difficult to find coinciding times

SAMR MODEL FOR TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 8

during the day that would allow her to meet with other teachers or observe their classroom.

The researcher was able to overcome lack of time for meeting by making herself available

after school, which allowed teachers to meet to discuss goals and expectations. However,

because of overlapping teaching times, observations were much more challenging which

resulted in only one observation. This was also the result of teacher implementation not

taking place until after the finalization of the capstone project.

According to Beglau et. al. (2011) in a peer-coaching model, a teachers needs drive

and shape collaboration between teacher and coach. This is what makes this type of model

successful and it implies teachers choice and desire for the coaching relationship. The initial

intent of this capstone project was to establish a relationship among colleagues in order to

integrate technology through collaboration focusing on precise and valuable needs. Initially,

administrators were supportive of collaborating meetings being optional for teachers.

However, as the project progressed, administrators decided to deviate and make these

meetings a requirement. A challenge emerged for the researcher with this decision because it

changed the necessary interaction of collaboration and interdependence between coach and

teacher to one of complete dependence on the coach. This barrier was difficult to overcome

in its totality, but it was not as evident towards the end of the project implementation.

Finally, as the researcher deviated from the original sole role of Middle School

technology coach to the additional role of workshop leader and presenter, the time constraints

were even greater. Moreover, the initial workshop was limited by lack of choice or

customization for teachers diverse needs. However, this workshop did serve to establish the

researchers role as a Technology Leader as intended by administration as well as exposure to

various tools, resources and coaching model.

Results and Follow-Up

SAMR MODEL FOR TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 9

Based on the Integration Debrief survey and the Workshop Feedback, the initiatives

for professional development through peer-coaching and community learning served as

catalysts for diffusion of strategies for technology integration. Using a scale of 1 to 5, with 5

being the highest level of agreement, 25% of the teachers who participated in peer-coaching

in the Middle School division answered 5 when asked if they would collaborate again in

another unit or lesson, while 50% of them chose a value of 4, and 25% a value of 3. This

indicates teachers positive disposition toward this type of professional development. (See

Appendix C) Furthermore, results of the workshop participants who provided feedback

indicated an average level of interest. The feedback was measured using a scale of 1 to 5,

where 5 indicated that teachers learned a lot of useful information, teachers ranked each

workshop session at 3.69, 3.82, 2.70, and 2.63, which reveals there is room for improvement

in this area of professional development. (see Appendix D)

In addition to a positive disposition for peer-coaching, the results of the Integration

Debrief provided valuable information about further meetings as well as meetings with other

colleagues. Seventy-five percent of the teachers indicated that the area of focus in which they

need more instructional coaching would be in authentic learning. This is sometimes difficult

living in an expatriate community, but technology certainly proved to be a great solution for

this authentic student-learning problem. The results also indicate that teachers appreciate the

time the instructional coach invested in finding relevant resources to meet their specific

standards. Finally, 37% of the peer-coaching participants indicated that they would like to

receive support in the technology implementation of their refined unit. (see Appendix E).

The researcher was able to coach only two of her colleagues through all the stages of

the Peer-Ed Model as outlined by Beglau et. al. (2011). These stages include assessing,

setting goals, implementing activities, analyzing and debriefing. As stated by Guzey (2017),

the reflection piece in technology integration is a key element that allows teachers to
SAMR MODEL FOR TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 10

internalize its use and sustain this integration in their teaching practice. From the

conversations with the teachers that experienced the entirety of the model, the researcher can

infer that the 37% of the participants that indicated they needed support with implementation

were those who were able to experience the whole process and viewed it as valuable.

Therefore, it is critical for successful and sustained implementation of technology, that the

researchers ensure that the teachers who have not implemented their technology enhanced

units or lessons receive the necessary support at the appropriate time.

As stated previously, the workshop approach to professional development is in need

of improvement in the way it is presented and delivered. According to

the Hanover Research (Professional Development for Technology Integration, 2014 p.4)

successful professional development development are highly customized, delivering

immediately usable solutions. Since teachers will be required to attend these teacher-led

workshops, it is important to present clear information about the purpose of the workshop,

the specific strategies, resources or tools that will be addressed, as well as targeted grade

levels and content areas. This will allow teachers to make an informed choice that will add

value to their teaching practice, and ultimately, improve student learning.

With the success of peer-coaching in the Middle School division, it is likely that other

divisions will follow suit. The ability of the participating teachers to identify the SAMR

stages of their instruction is of particular importance as the schools moves towards

establishing norms and expectations (see Appendix F). Currently, there is a school-wide

technology facilitator at TIS, but with the wide-spread of content areas and grade levels,

many teachers do not approach him for their technology needs. As teacher leaders emerge,

administration has opened up the conversation for the possibility of part-time positions for

technology coaches throughout the divisions. This would be an adequate utilization of human
SAMR MODEL FOR TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 11

and financial resources in the school. As Frazier (2011) concluded, peer coaching offers a

sustainable and cost-effective approach to improving technology integration practice.

Discussion and Reflection

This capstone project provided the researcher a great opportunity to gain better

understanding of the knowledge, skills and dispositions necessary for a technology facilitator

or leader. The scope of the project presented multiple interactions with a variety of

stakeholders through different platforms. This allowed the researcher to experience the wide

range of possibilities that open up with Instructional Technology leadership.

At the initial stages of the project, it was important to demonstrate an understanding

of the shared vision. The lessons learned in the Instructional Leadership course were valuable

to address the problem described in the capstone proposal with the administration and

leadership of the school. In order to make a compelling case to the proposed solution to the

problem, it was imperative to show knowledge of effective use of technology to promote

excellence and support transformational change in Tianjin International School as outlined in

the PSC Standard 1. The researcher was able to design, develop, and recommend procedures

and strategies to support implementation of the shared vision for technology implementation

in the school. Because peer-coaching presents a cost-effective option to meet our goals, it

was received as a viable solution. A key element for the researcher to consider during this

initial discussion with administration was the fact that the leadership teams pursuit for

excellence encompassed goals beyond our technology goal. This meant that the coach should

facilitate, whenever possible, strategies what would be suitable for both of the primary goals

in the school. This supports Sheningers (2016) idea of prioritizing instructional excellence

and viewing technology as an effective tool without sacrificing structure, relevance, and

rigor.
SAMR MODEL FOR TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 12

Prior to collaborating meetings, it was essential to develop digital learning

environments that would generate a common language among stakeholders. Although not

part of this capstone project, but closely tied to it, the researcher found creating fully online

learning platform for this purpose a rewarding experience. As part of the capstone project this

fully online learning platform had to be adapted to a face-to-face learning platform using

digital tools to support and expand opportunities for professional learning. This, along with

the development of digital content for the workshop led by the researcher and other teacher

leaders, provided opportunities to apply digital design concepts learned through the

Instructional Technology program. It was enriching to utilize what the researcher learned

about online platforms and digital content visual appeal, navigation and flow, cognitive

effectiveness, relevance and quality of resources, and scaffolding. These are all fundamental

aspects of the knowledge, skills, and dispositions to create, support, and manage effective

digital learning as outlined in various elements of PSC Standard 3.

A crucial component of the capstone proposal was choosing the research design and

selecting participants. Because the total school population is not large at about 400 students,

it was tempting to aim at having a large enough scope to include all divisions. However, as

the researcher explored and studied possible outcomes, this presented many potential issues,

such as lack of familiarity with the learning community or relevant knowledge. Selecting a

smaller sample in which the researcher had spent more time to become familiar proved to be

more effective. This was because a professional community of trust and understanding had

already been established, which leveraged important benefits of community such as

availability of knowledge and purposeful connection with peers as described by Beglau et. al.

(2011).

The researcher found that collaboration with teachers in a one-to-one setting in the

role of instructional coach was an enriching learning experience that addressed many
SAMR MODEL FOR TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 13

essential Instructional Technology standards from the PSC. As an instructional coach, the

researchers was able to collaborate with teachers and administrators to select and evaluate

digital tools and resources for accuracy, suitability and compatibility with school technology

infrastructure addressing standard 3.6. Because of the setting of the school and the restrictive

Firewall that exists in our host country, this proved to be a vital component for the successful

implementation of technology in the classrooms. Additionally, peer-coaching allowed the

researcher to model and facilitate the design and implementation of technology-enhanced

learning experiences that aligned with student content standards. This was particularly true

when coaching participants who were able to experience all the stages of Peer-Ed Model as

outlined by Beglau et. al. (2011). Several of the peer-coaching participants requested support

in engaging students in authentic learning experiences. The researcher was able to model and

facilitate the use of digital tools and resources, such as the use of real-time data and global

collaborative platforms. This in conjunction with discussion and brainstorming that occurred

during these meetings for effective classroom management, collaborating learning strategies,

and troubleshooting to maximize the use of the digital tools and resources allowed the

researcher to meet several elements of PSC standard 2.

In the collaborating meetings the researcher was able to discuss ways to promote

digital citizenship and responsibility during the learning activities. As the collaborating

teacher and the coach explored various resources, it was important to consider which of them

were public and which had the availability to customize privacy settings. This would allow

the collaborating team to decide what measures would be taken in order to promote safe,

healthy, legal, and ethical uses of digital information among students. Furthermore, as digital

tools and resources were evaluated and selected, discussions about diverse student needs,

enhancing cultural understanding, and increasing global awareness were determining factors.

The researcher learned that having an established partnership relationship was key to guiding
SAMR MODEL FOR TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 14

the collaborating teacher through these components of digital tool and resource selection.

This relationship helped the collaborating teachers to shift from perceiving barriers only to

embracing opportunities to promote digital citizenship and responsibility skills as described

in PSC standard 4 as well as to enhance higher order thinking skills described in element 2.4

among students.

The researchers original choice of learning design was intended to leverage what was

learned throughout the program about allowing educators to be responsible for taking an

active role in selecting and constructing learning designs that facilitate their own learning.

This was the reason the researcher had attempted to persuade administration to allow

collaborating meetings to be optional. However, although these meetings were mandatory,

the researcher was able to infuse an adequate level of choice in the learning design in order to

promote active learning among teachers. This process involved discussion and dialogue of

each teachers individual goals through choice of standards, area of focus, and SAMR stage

to target. In addition to these experiences, the researcher was able to integrate technology to

support face-to-face professional learning in the workshops sessions during professional

development time. Through these experiences the researcher was able to demonstrate the

knowledge, skills, and disposition to develop technology-based professional learning

programs as well and initiate the process of implementation of program evaluations to assess

effectiveness. These are all outlined in elements 5.2 and 5.3 of the PSC standard 5.

Finally, throughout the implementation process of this capstone project, the

researcher engaged in personal learning activities that would further her knowledge, skills,

and dispositions that would contribute to support teachers in meeting their goals. For

example, there were many standards addressed by teachers, which fell outside of the area of

the researchers content expertise. In order to find appropriate tools and resources and

provide adequate support in collaboration, it was essential to explore standards and become
SAMR MODEL FOR TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 15

very familiarized with the content in them. In turn, the researcher had to investigate the

current and emerging technologies that would apply to the standards that would improve the

collaborating teacher and her own professional practice. As the researcher concludes this

reflection it is also evident that she is able to reflect and evaluate her professional practice in

order to improve and strengthen her ability. These are all elements that are addressed in

Standard 6.

Recommendations

As mentioned before, this capstone project was implemented in a learning community

that has been previously established. If anyone is interested in addressing a similar problem,

the researcher recommends that they make sure this partnership relationship is already in

place if they are expecting immediate results. If this is not possible, it is important that a

researcher allows for sufficient time to develop such community. Initially, the researcher was

discouraged to hear that she would be only working with one division. It seemed as though

innovation diffusion would not occur with such a small group of people. However, she was

able to observe that relationships of trust and understanding lay the foundation for

sustainability in innovations. The researcher realized that a partnership relationship

developed much easier and was more effective when other teachers see the coach as equal.

This could not have been accomplished in a short time if the researcher had entered into a

community that was unfamiliar to her.

An important recommendation is to allow for flexibility and keep pathways of

communication open with administrators. The initial intent to make the collaborating

meetings optional was overturned, which made initial meetings much more challenging. It is

crucial to communicate with administration about the importance of allowing teachers take

part in the choice of professional learning in order to promote active roles among them.

However, if administrators find a need for mandatory meetings for the sake of accountability,
SAMR MODEL FOR TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 16

it is important that they still allow a certain level of choice among teachers. Once teachers

engage in the coaching process, one stage that cannot be overlooked is the reflection stage.

Although all participating teachers in this project engaged in some form of reflection, those

that were part of face-to-face debriefing and conversation found peer-coaching most useful.

This cannot be understated. Subsequently, these teachers that observe and experience the

whole process will be able to support and coach other teachers in their areas of expertise.
SAMR MODEL FOR TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 17

References

Beglau, M., Craig-Hare, J., Foltos, L., Gann, K., James, J., Jobe, H., Knight, J., &

Smith, B. (2011). Technology, Coaching and Community: Power Partners for

Improved Professional Development in Primary and Secondary Education. Retrieved

from https://www.iste.org/resources/product?ID=2157

Frazier, T. (2011). The Effects of Peer Coaching for Technology Integration on Teachers

Comfort, Practice, and Student Technology Literacy. Dissertations, Theses and

Capstone Projects. Paper 472.

Guzey, S. S., & Roehrig, G. H. (n.d.). Integrating Educational Technology into the Secondary

Science Teaching. Retrieved January 25, 2017, from

http://www.citejournal.org/volume-12/issue-2-12/science/integrating-educational-

technology-into-the-secondary-science-teaching Hanover Research (2014, July 2).

Professional Development for technology integration [Web log comment]. Retrieved

from http://www.hanoverresearch.com/2014/07/02/professional-development-for-

technology-integration/

Instructional Coaching: Driving Meaningful Tech Integration. (2015, June 23). Retrieved

January 25, 2017, from https://www.edutopia.org/practice/instructional-coaching-

driving-meaningful-tech-integration

Sheninger, E. (2016). Uncommon Learning: Creating Schools that work for Kids. Thousand

Oaks,CA: Corwin.

Wilson, D. & Alaniz, K. (2015). Coaching for Technology Integration: A Peer Partnership

Approach. In D. Rutledge & D. Slykhuis (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for

Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2015 (pp.

1409-1414). Chesapeake, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in

SAMR MODEL FOR TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 18

Education (AACE). Retrieved January 24, 2017 from

https://www.learntechlib.org/p/150580

Appendix A

Results from the Technology Integration Survey supporting the reasons preventing educators

from integrating technology.

 SAMR MODEL FOR TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 19

Appendix B

Collaboration Planning Form (Revised to include Technology Goal)

What upcoming unit might we improve or refine?

What are the standards? What do the students learn in this unit?

Based on the SAMR integration Matrix, identify:

Area(s) of Focus: Current Stage in this Area(s):

0 Information Acquisition 0 Substitution
0 Collaborative 0 Augmentation
0 Constructive 0 Modification
0 Authentic 0 Redefinition
0 Goal Directed

Technology Goal:

Is there a particular problem or dilemma you had in the past with this unit that we might address?
Who?

What?

When?

How?

Other issues discussed (Use probing questions to help the teacher think about the issues with the unit and determine a starting
point for your collaboration):

Action Items (Tools, visits, further Person responsible Approximate Time

meetings, other resources)
SAMR MODEL FOR TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 20

Appendix C

Results from the Technology Integration Debrief indicating teachers positive disposition

toward peer-coaching as part of professional development.

SAMR MODEL FOR TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 21

Appendix D

Results from the workshop feedback revealing areas in need of improvement.

SAMR MODEL FOR TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 22

Appendix E

Results from the Technology Integration Debrief indicating the area in which participants

desire to receive support in technology implementation of their refined unit.

SAMR MODEL FOR TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 23

Appendix F

Results from the Technology Integration Debrief showing participants ability to identify

the SAMR level in their instruction.