I recently taught summer workshop for teachers on how to use and implement SMART Response technology into the classroom. I conducted a half-day training, which was four hours. The lesson up was broken into three phases to inform and engage the learners. I taught a group of 14 teachers, the majority were middle school teachers. A few of the participants taught in grades 4 or 5.
The second part of the lesson consisted of me giving teachers an assessment on what they learned. The assessment was authentic, as teachers experienced the tool in a real setting. I evaluated their understanding of SMART Response. At the conclusion of the assessment, teachers could see their scores, as could I. During a break, I used the Teacher Tools on my computer to analyze the group’s results and put them into groups for part 3.
During the next phase (guided practice), constructivism was present as teachers created their own SMART Response assessments using content specific to their classrooms. This section of the training allowed them to use the content in ways that were meaningful to their own environments. Based on the assessment given in part 2 of the training, I put 6 teachers who scored a 90% or better on their assessment together as an advanced group. The other 8 worked with me in a group. With the group of 8 I did more scaffolding and active guided practice. The advanced group relied on peer collaboration when questions arose.
The learning goals focused on teacher use of this tool in their own classrooms. I felt these goals were accomplished. Teachers left the class knowing how to operate the program from their own computers and also created a SMART Response assessment that could be used with kids next school year.
Through each phase of training, teachers experienced the content in different ways. Teaching content through direct instruction, guided practice, and scaffolding aided in solidifying understanding of the tool. Time seemed to be a constraint of the training. As is the case in many learning environments, there never seems to be enough time. Some teachers made multiple assessments, while others worked at a slower pace and struggled to finish one assessment during the training session.
This training was voluntary. Some in attendance had a previous overview of how SMART Response worked, but most came in with no prior knowledge. The intent of the training was to engage teachers and enhance their competency using technology to engage students and to inform instruction. By using results from the SMART Response assessment of the tool, the teachers were grouped based on ability, and were able to work at a pace that was comfortable to each individual.
The role of technology was unique in this training, as the technology was the content and means for learning. The learning goals and objectives tied directly to the use of the tool. Because the technology was the content and means for learning, the advantages of using it were somewhat hard to decipher. Using the technology as the students would was a major advantage of this training lesson. Teachers were able to have a hands-on experience with the tool from the perspective of the students. This hands-on experience, that then lead to creation with the tool, facilitated the learning and allowed teachers to apply concepts learned earlier in the training.
Based on the learning goals, it was my expectation that teachers would leave the session understanding how to use SMART Response and to have one or more assessments ready to assign for the next school year. The issues that arose during the lesson were those of functionality and how to work certain elements of the tool. The majority of questions surfaced when it came time to start an assessment for students. I re-iterated the process and showed teachers where they could locate video tutorials for help in the future. Overall, the teachers did very well with learning the new tool. The phases of the lesson and differentiation allowed teachers to feel safe with the pace and process of their own learning.












