A key driver for the The SPaM framework was the emergence of “modality”, something which I had been referring to for a number of years as part of my work on blended learning, but which really came to prominence during the pandemic which emphasised the need for us all to think more rigorously about the “teaching mode” we might use in certain circumstances. In the context of TPACK, Modality is a direct replacement for the Technological Knowledge domain.
I have drawn my own various diagrams for teaching modes (Modality) but now nearly always refer to the wonderful diagram by Sue Beckingham (see below).
In the context of SPaM modality requires us to more explicitly consider how our students will be accessing their learning and the extent to which that will be online / on campus / synchronous or asynchronous. We need to begin to really understand the value of each mode and how we can make use of the mix of them to improve the learning (and teaching) experience.
For example, in the context of on-campus teaching do we really need a lecture every week for each module? When is it of value to have on-campus lectures (and I do think there is) as opposed to pre-recording short asynchronous videos presenting the same information?
In Paul LeBlanc’s article titled “The Human-Technology Intersection: A Framework” he suggested we ask three questions:
- What human interactions are most critical for student success?
- How can technology enable better versions of those interactions?
- Where can technology replace people so that human resources can be redirected to accomplish more of those interactions?
In the context of the SPaM framework and campus-based education I think we should be asking ourselves these questions:
- What in-person (on campus) interactions are most critical for student success?
- How can we make use of other teaching modes to enhance the value of in-person interactions?
- How can we use these teaching modes free up time for more of these high value in-person interactions?
The role of technology.
In the context of SPaM I have used modality as a replacement for what was the “Technological” knowledge domain in the TPACK framework, which Koehler and Mishra (2006) added to Schulman’s original Pedagogical Content Knowledge framework, but in my experience having used the TPACK framework with academic staff, this often meant that in discussions with them technology became the focus of the conversation as if encouraging a technocentric approach to education.
Of course, that’s not to say technology and digital tools are not an integral part of the learning and teaching landscape, but that they should be framed around the need for digital tools and systems based on the curriculum design and teaching mode. Therefore I consider that “Modality” is a better starting point from which any technological decisions can be made (including the need for no technology if the teaching mode allows for it) but that ultimately all three domains will influence each other.
“Digital Pedagogy is precisely not about using digital technologies for teaching and, rather, about approaching those tools from a critical pedagogical perspective. So, it is as much about using digital tools thoughtfully as it is about deciding when not to use digital tools, and about paying attention to the impact of digital tools on learning.”
https://hybridpedagogy.org/tag/what-is-digital-pedagogy/
You can find a full list of references for this work on the references resource page.
To cite this work:
Thomson, S. (2022, February 3). SPaM – A Framework to support the Development of Hybrid Education. SPaM Framework. https://spam.digis.im
