Module 5 Critical Thinking assignment
OLT545 Technology and innovation
Classroom Tech Enhancement Analysis: Repackaging PBL
Professor Virginia Padilla-Vigil
Matthew Klaver
2/15/26
Classroom Tech Enhancement Analysis: Repackaging PBL
The purpose of this paper is to find ways to enhance the learning in an already established or planned lesson and find ways to meaningfully integrate technology into this lesson. I will be looking at this assignment through the SAMR lens. The SAMR model categorizes technology integration into “Substitution, Augmentation, Modification, and Redefinition” (Kimmons, 2020). My school used to be predominantly PBL-based, but this is no longer the case. Scripted curriculum and test prep have prevailed over critical thinking and real-world problem-solving.
One of my favorite PBLs was a redesign of the packaging of students' favorite snacks. The purpose was to use what we had learned in math about surface area and volume to reduce the amount of packaging used and determine if a more sustainable material was available.
The PBL was a shared one between Math and Engineering at the 6th-grade level. The standards being taught are tied to the geometry standards for 6th grade related to surface area and volume of irregular shapes.
The assignment was taught through PowerPoint, lecture, design with pencil and paper, math tools, modeling with paper/cardboard/available materials, and presenting to a panel of experts with a slide show and models of the new packaging.
The assessment was based on product innovation, use/understanding of surface area and volume, group work, and presentation quality.
This aligns with the understanding that “technology should not be used for its own sake but should support and enhance the teaching of specific content within the context of pedagogical goals” (Nieves, 2021).
Students have always been very engaged during this PBL. There are different aspects that appeal to different learners. Some focused on making the math work, others worked primarily on the presentation, and some focused on building iterations of prototypes and models. The project differentiated itself as learners could choose ways to participate that they were comfortable with, while also being challenging. The social aspect of collaborating was always complex to navigate: different motivation levels, skill levels, communication styles, and opinions. Ultimately, the goal for successful groups was to find ways to compromise and meet in the middle.
Success in this aspect depended heavily on the group dynamics and support from the teacher to navigate disagreements and make plans to meet project deadlines. Classroom management in these types of lessons is minimal. Mostly keeping students on track, helping when members get stuck at a certain point, providing constant feedback, and assisting with managing complex social interactions. Many students who were traditionally exhibiting behavior problems would become leaders, builders, and contributors. It wasn’t magic, but it was close, and it was always a delicate tightrope between deep learning, experimentation, and utter chaos. Rooms were a mess, but great things were happening. The technology available was Google Slides, rudimentary drawing programs like Microsoft Paint, and Google for research. Most of the work was done by hand, other than creating the presentation and project write-ups. Meaningful learning environments are described as “active, collaborative, constructive, authentic, and goal-directed” (Florida Center for Instructional Technology [FCIT], n.d.).
Many opportunities exist for integration with our current tech. TinkerCad would be an amazing integration into the design and iteration aspect. Students could design and test their prototypes in TinkerCad instead of building multiple models out of paper, glue, or cardboard. Multiple students could be working on the same model or contributing to the modeling process. This supports the recommendation to “use technology to facilitate higher-order thinking skills, such as analysis, evaluation, and creation” (Nieves, 2021).
A second game-changer would be TinkerCad’s ability to communicate files to 3D printers. Students could design, print, and assemble their products with professional-level quality using 3D printers and/or the GlowForge, which is an amazing laser cutting device that has built-in design software students can access online. In glowforge students can design a 3D model and then take the model apart into printable laser-cut 2D sections that they can assemble after being cut. Such integration reflects the idea that effective technology use involves “acknowledgment of the dynamic, transactional relationship among content, pedagogy, and the incoming technology” (Kimmons, 2020).
Another integration would be the use of different modes of presentation. While GoogleSlides are the new world version of PowerPoint, it’s still in many ways the same platform. Creating an interactive website, Prezi, or Canva is a great way to open more avenues for creative expression and interactive presentations. Students work simultaneously on different sections, and their presentation is easily accessible to present to people all around the world digitally. Previously, students were heavily dependent on getting professionals to come to the building, using up a lot of their professional time for travel and sitting through presentations.
With cloud-based presentation platforms, students can present to professionals while they’re at home or in the workplace; they could be in a different timezone or an entirely different country. Many new opportunities are opened for students to share their work. This aligns with the understanding that practical application “prepares students for a future where technology is ubiquitous” (Drexel University School of Education, 2020).
Through the lens of SAMR, we’re substituting and augmenting traditional GoogleSlide/PowerPoint presentations for more interactive and creative options. We’re modifying and redefining the prototyping, building, and modeling process by moving from glue sticks, paper, and cardboard to laser-cut/3D printed models that support students in creating some very high-quality products with minimal learning needing to be done in how to access the design programs. The depth of these transformations moves students from the Lincoln Log, LEGO, popsicle sticks, plastic straws, elmers glue, tape, and paperplane building era into cutting edge 21st century technology supported PBLs were students will be working with programs that support the development of real-world tech skills needed in many modern professions. The SAMR model is described as a framework to reflect on “how the lesson can be improved using technology” (Kimmons, 2020).
Challenges to this shift toward new technologies are going to be access to expensive 3D printers and laser cutting tools like the GlowForge. This could be easily solved by giving districts the freedom to opt out of using precious funding for useless, biased, and outmoded assessments like our current standardized assessments. Funds could be freed up by eliminating the purchasing of paper and pencil curricular workbooks and opting for the digital options, eliminating costly student HW planners, and instead shifting to the use of GoogleCalendar, eliminating printer budgets by only purchasing educational tools and curricular resources with fully online access. Barriers to technology integration commonly include “access and infrastructure, teacher training, cost, digital literacy, and equity” (Baronia, 2022).
An excellent way to reduce expensive staffing in districts would be to eliminate the need for excessive district admin positions and expensive district buildings with coffee shops, restaurants, and employees who justify their positions by creating underwhelming in-person professional developments when perfectly good experts have already created online PD for purchase and streaming. Allowing teachers to stay in their buildings, reducing the number of six-figure salaries for employees who don’t work directly with students, and possibly even freeing up a little bit in the district coffers to increase teacher pay for all the additional training needed to learn how to be experts in current educational technologies.
With the intentional implementation of technological enhancements to traditional modes of learning, teachers can stimulate student engagement, efficacy, and free up teacher time for facilitation of social skills, critical thinking, problem-solving, and time management. Students run the show, and teachers support the learning with accommodations, scaffolds, small group and 1:1 interactions, providing feedback and support instead of lecturing and grading multiple choice tests and constructed responses. Effective technology integration requires “continually creating, maintaining, and re-establishing a dynamic equilibrium” among pedagogy, content, and technology (Kimmons, 2020).
References
Baronia, R. P. (2022, September 28). Obstacles in technology integration and implementation. The International Educator.
Drexel University School of Education. (2020). The importance of technology in education.
Florida Center for Instructional Technology. (n.d.). Technology integration matrix.
Kimmons, R. (2020). Technology integration: Effectively integrating technology in educational settings. In A. Ottenbreit-Leftwich & R. Kimmons (Eds.), The K–12 educational technology handbook. EdTech Books.
Nieves, M. (2021). Synthesizing technology integration frameworks for effective instructional practice.