Evaluating use of technology with PICRAT

PICRAT is a matrix for evaluating use of digital technology in education. It is now seen as an alternative to the 'SAMR' model, which was developed by Dr. Ruben Puentedura, 'SAMR' being an acronym for 'substitution', 'augmentation', 'modification' and 'redefinition'. In this post, we will examine PICRAT and SAMR and explore how these models can ensure effective and purposeful use of technology in schools.

The SAMR model played a crucial part in ensuring that teachers strived for technology use that 'redefined' the activities that children did in schools. For a long time, I have advised teachers to starts with outcomes when they are planning their lessons and considering use of technology. Do we imagine the children producing films to show at a school film festival? Do we imagine them creating using augmented reality? Do we imagine them taking photographs of the local area and selling these to raise money? Are they speaking with children in another country via video call? All of these outcomes are only made possible through use of technology - technology has redefined the work that children do.

'Substitution' is at the opposite end of the SAMR scale. Examples would be using device to take notes, reading from a screen, or using a device as a digital version of a whiteboard. Of course, there are cases when all of these uses of technology surpass their traditional equivalents, such as the teacher being able to see the children's digital whiteboards in real time. This is when substitution moves into 'augmentation', or even 'modification' of activities.

I must confess to finding it hard to conclusively class an activity on the SAMR scale. There is an element of subjectivity about this judgement; is writing an email to someone in another country modification of a written activity, or redefining the activity they do? In one sense, it doesn't matter, as long as teachers strive for outcome-focused work facilitated where necessary by use of technology.

The PICRAT matrix was developed by Kimmons, Graham and West. Its main difference from SAMR is that it takes into account the students' relationship to the technology, as well as the activity itself and the extent to which this activity is replaced, augmented or transformed by technology.

PICRAT has two elements therefore:

Students engagement:

Passive

Interactive

Creative

Effect of technology on the traditional practice:

Replace

Augment

Transformed

Put together, these lists form a matrix, on which activities can be placed:

Onto this matrix, we can place activities where technology is used. Children viewing a slide presentation in a class would be an example of Passive, Replacement, and so fall in the bottom left section. Does this mean that we should never show children slide presentations? No, of course not. Showing information on slides is one of the most effective and efficient ways of sharing images, text and videos with them. But for schools evaluating tech use, activities exclusively in this section show a lack of higher level ICT use.

A great activity to run with staff at training on PICRAT is to present them with a list of activities and ask where they think they go on the PICRAT model. This generates good discussion about the nature and purpose of tech use and encourages teachers to think about how they use technology in their lessons.

Some possible examples for discussion:

• Creating a historical documentary

• Taking nature photos using iPad cameras

• Responding to a digital poll (such as using Quizizz, Padlet or Poll Everywhere)

• Children collaborating to build a Roman town using Minecraft

• Children using digital data loggers in Science (such as the Arduino Science Journal app or Sparkvue data loggers)

• Children reading books using Kindles

• Using digital drawing tools in Book Creator to create pages about the summer holidays

Placement of these activities on the PICRAT grid will still create discussion and some disagreement, but by having only three classes against which to judge the activity itself (replace, augment and transform), and by encouraging teachers to also think about the students' activity, teachers are literally, adding another dimension to their evaluation of their use of technology.