This really shouldn’t be groundbreaking. And yet, sometimes I find myself –asking different questions–tackling particular problems–engaging with certain people and ideas– at a given point that allow me to shift my perspective and fully see or understand something “anew” (or perhaps for the “first time”).

Bhatt and de Roock (2013) allowed me to make just such a powerful connection this week to frame how I think about capturing and understanding digital literacies in similar ways to how traditional literacies have been recast away from overly-taxonomic cognitive models. As someone who LOVES categories and lists and naturally embraces them as an organizational aids and models, this is an important reminder to help me to socially situate digital literacies as I think about what it means to capture and represent these practices in qualitative research, though perhaps even more importantly in my own classrooms.

A few points worth noting:

• Their discussion describes digital literacy events (drawing from Heath and Lankshear & Knobel) as “observable occasions in which digital text is central and where meanings are ‘mediated by texts that are produced, received, distributed, exchanged, etc. via digital codification.”
• Sociomaterial assemblage is also used “to address the complex entanglement of social and material work that goes into classroom digital literacies.” Here the writers draw from Law and Latour.
• In researching digital literacies in classroom settings, the writers attempted to explore “what participants see, say and do in relation to what they write in the classroom.” By capturing a wider and more multimodal picture of these digital literacy events, they hoped to better unpack the sociomaterial assemblages and to “better understand what occurs when students interact with computers in the classroom.”

Perhaps I am at “a point” in my own studies where the framing of this work finally “clicks” in a resounding way. While I’m sure these writers are likely not the first to make such a claim, it is certainly powerful for me to consider in my own practice. While the focus of this article asks how qualitative research methodologies must adapt in order to capture the more “full-bodied” nature of these events, I wonder how the practices, lessons, and reflections–the experiences–I design for my classes might also represent and capture this picture of digital literacies. How do we prepare teachers to support the development of more critical dispositions for engaging in digital literacy events? What are the added dimensions of these assemblages that might not apply to traditional literacies, and how do we address/prepare teachers to think about them less as discrete skills (even as we attempt to do so ourselves)?
​
Bhatt, I., & Roock, R. De. (2013). Capturing the sociomateriality of digital literacy events. Research in Learning Technology, 21.

I first began using technology in my classroom right around the time I first began teaching. Web 2.0 was just beginning to make an impact in educational settings, and rather surprisingly, I was poised as an early adopter. With growing confidence I realized this new “niche” I had stumbled upon would be marketable and meaningful for my professional growth. And yet, I had the whole “thing” backwards.

Creatively redesigning lessons to integrate technology tools helped me to achieve new possibilities in the classroom. However, my planning process typically began by selecting a digital tool/device and then brainstorming when, where, and how I might use it in my class. Later while studying for my Master’s, I realized that this process should be reversed–beginning with my students and their needs and then selecting digital tools that could be repurposed to transform the learning process and experience for students, while also allowing them to explore 21st century skills.

Regardless of my process, an important question I always asked myself was, “how does this technology infused redesigned lesson actually impact/improve/reimagine the content/skills/experience of students?” While there are times when we all turn to technology to aid in ease, communication, or productivity of tasks, it was important to me that revamped lessons “do something more.” Now I finally have a vocabulary to articulate this feeling.
Enter the SAMR Model (Ruben Puentedura; hippasus.com)

Unknown to me before this year, the SAMR Model is making the rounds quickly (and if you haven’t heard of it yet, it is probably on its way in some upcoming pd session). The framework has provided a useful vocabulary and model for discussing and analyzing the role of technology integration in lesson design–an important topic for preservice and practicing teachers alike. There are times when Substitution and Augmentation are strong beginning points–especially for new teachers or new tools–when insecurities might hold back creative risk-taking until greater confidence is built through early successes. It is then that brainstorming ways to move beyond enhancement and towards transformation should become new goals. The stages of Modification and Redefinition help us to analyze exactly what and how our use of technology is impacting/improving/reimagining the content/skills/experience for our students. Framing these stages as a progressive model, one that need not be worked through sequentially but can be visited and revisited at different points as different needs arise is an encouraging and empowering point of view.
​
Thank you SAMR Model for helping to clarify and present these important perspectives in such a non-threatening way