Article Summary: The Substitution Augmentation Modification Redefinition (SAMR) Model

Hamilton, E., Rosenberg, J., & Akcaoglu, M. (2016). The Substitution Augmentation Modification Redefinition (SAMR) Model: a Critical Review and Suggestions for its Use. Techtrends: Linking Research & Practice To Improve Learning, 60(5), 433-441.

This article provides a critical review of the SAMR model as well as suggestions for its use. The SAMR model stands for Substitution, Augmentation, Modification, and Redefinition. This model is used to help educators select, use, and evaluate technology in k-12 settings. "the SAMR model is intended to be a tool through which one may describe and categorize K-12 teachers' uses of classroom technology," (Hamilton, Rosenberg, & Akcaogula, p. 434). The model is in place to encourage teachers to use higher levels of teaching with tech which will then lead to higher levels of teaching and learning. At the lowest level, Substitution, tech acts as a direct tool substitute, with no functional change. For example, for an assignment students may have in the past written a narrative on paper, whereas now they would be typing their narratives in a word processing application. At the next level, Augmentation, tech acts as a direct tool substitute with functional improvement. For example, instead of a whole class read aloud, students can now use devices to listen and read a digital story. In the next level, Modification, tech positively redesigns a task. For example, instead of just having a slide show with text on each page, now videos and audio are incorporated into a movie presentation. Last at the highest level, Redefinition, tech allows for the creation of new tasks previously inconceivable. For example, in the past a student may have taken notes while reading a book in a notebook, now students can use a concept mapping tool, like Popplet, to construct a mind map of the key ideas, concepts, and elements with text, images, and video. 

This article goes on to describe three challenges to the SAMR model. The first challenge being the absence of context. "The contexts in which educators teach matters and is an important consideration for any model connected to teaching and learning," (Hamilton, Rosenberg, & Akcaogula, p. 436). As a teacher who has technology 1:1 in my classroom, it is much more feasible to plan lessons in which I can provide a digital text to students to listen to and read as opposed to a teacher who may only have two desktop computers available in their classroom. It is not reasonable to have that teacher place ten students around each desktop and expect them to get the same outcomes as myself. "Educational research [is] the hardest science because of the difficulty of obtaining experimental control,"(Hamilton, Rosenberg, & Akcaogula, p. 436). We wouldn't ask a farmer to compare their oranges and apples, so why are we asking teachers to compare their outcomes when they don't have the same circumstances? 

The next challenge is the rigid structure of the SAMR model. "In the SAMR model the emphasis remains on the levels of technology use teachers should align themselves with in order to move themselves along the hierarchical continuum of SAMR. This minimizes the more important focus on using technology in ways that emphasize shifting pedagogy or classroom practices to enhance teaching and learning," (Hamilton, Rosenberg, & Akcaogula, p. 437). Teachers may use technology in the hopes that they are reaching higher levels of technology use, however that does not always mean that they are getting higher levels of education to their students. Which brings up the final challenge discussed in this article. 

The last challenge is that the SAMR model focuses on changing the instructional activity or the product rather than the learning process. "The complexities inherent to teaching and learning processes require us to consider education as a process, rather than education as the production of simplistic independent stand-alone products," (Hamilton, Rosenberg, & Akcaogula, p. 438). This idea that learning is a process and not a final product reminds educators that involves interactions between individuals and the technology that is enhancing their learning. "When integrating technology, the purpose of this integration should be on enhancing and supporting student learning rather than using a particular technology," (Hamilton, Rosenberg, & Akcaogula, p. 438). 

In a world where technology is only becoming more and more prevalent, it is important as educators to remember that when we are incorporating tech into our lessons, that the tech is there to promote student learning and achievement. We should be able to use what is available to us without feeling like we need to change the instructional goals to meet the technologies needs as opposed changing our instructional goals to meet students needs. 

Article Summary: Learning Objects and Engagement of Students in Australian and New Zealand Schools

Lowe, K., Lee, L., Schibeci, R., Cummings, R., Phillips, R., & Lake, D. (2010). Learning objects and engagement of students in Australian and New Zealand schools. British Journal Of Educational Technology, 41(2), 227-241. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2009.00964.x

In this article from the British Journal of Educational Technology, they surveyed, interviewed, and observed students interacting with different learning objects. The questions they were studying focused around student engagement in the objects. They first defined engagement as "when learners are captured, heart and mind in learning are cognitively and affectively connected with the learning experience," they also noted that, "students will engage with tasks they find interesting, challenging and important," (p. 229). When I think about engagement, I notice that all three of those factors are things that students need to stay focused on a task or they can easily become distracted to something they find more interesting, challenging or important. 

In this study students of similar ages were presented two different learning objects. The first was a game-like simulation of the digestive system. They were to feed their character and the character would respond in different ways depending on the actions taken. For example if a student did not have the character chew their food they could turn red as if they were choking. "Some students wanted to solve the digestion problem, while others simply wanted to see what dreadful results they could wreak. In both cases, they were interested enough to use the object a number of times," (p. 235). Whether students were doing something to watch their character turn green or they really wanted to figure out the issue, they were given text-based information that explained what was happening, so as they engaged in the activity they also learned new information. Learning objects like this are very relevant in my classroom of first graders. Game-like activities that interest and challenge students keep them engaged and focused. 

In the other learning object students were to figure out whether or not a liquid was an acid. This game presented many barriers for students, as the first step to the activity was for students to read a dense text about acids. Most of the students chose to skip over this step which then would come to hurt their performance throughout the activity later. As the activity progressed they would have to type a response to their observations and findings. Students later figured out that they could fill in nonsense and then continue through without consequence. In the end, this activity provided little incentive to read the information and respond to their actions. "The content itself provided little emotional interest and the cognitive interest was jeopardized by poor availability of key information," (p. 237). Engaging students requires more than just entertainment, as stated previously, students need to be interested in it, find it appropriately challenging, and find it important. 

This article clearly demonstrates how a learning object or multimedia tool can seem engaging, but until we let our students test that out and have them discover whether or not they are interested, challenged and give it any importance, we cannot say off hand if it is engaging. I think that it is also important to remember that every class and every student is different. Something that one student finds engaging may or may not be engaging to another. All of these things are important to remember when implementing our new multimedias in our classrooms. 

Article Summary: An Exploratory Study on K-12 Teachers' Use of Technology and Multimedia in the Classroom

Martin, F., & Carr, M. L. (2015). An Exploratory Study on K-12 Teachers' Use of Technology and Multimedia in the Classroom. Journal Of Educational Technology, 12(1), 7-14.

In this article, "An  Exploratory Study on K-12 Teachers' Use of Technology and Multimedia in the Classroom," Florence Martin and Marsha Carr, professors from the University of North Carolina Wilmington and Charlotte, use five different questions to survey teachers on what technology teachers use in their classrooms, how often they use technology/multimedia, how do they integrate technology/multimedia into their lessons, what tools they use to create multimedia, and where they learned to create multimedia. The terms "technology" and multimedia" can be interpreted differently to different people, so in this article they defined technology as, "the hardware that is used in the classroom," and multimedia as, "software applications," (Carr & Martin, 7).  

The survey was given to 701 practicing K-12 teachers. Of those teachers majority reported Desktop Computers as their primary source of technology, laptop computers coming in second. This article was published in 2015 only making this data 3 years old, which is surprising that Desktops were still more common than laptops. PowerPoint and YouTube were the top sources of multimedia used in the classroom reported by teachers. Majority of teachers reported that they were interested in learning how to make multimedia presentations, however there was a surprising quarter of the teachers surveyed that said they were not interested in learning. This fact makes me wonder why those teachers were thinking that way.

When it comes to using multimedia and technology in the classroom, I believe that one of the most important things for us as teachers is to be open to learning new methods of multimedia. As times change and new tools are available to us, I think that it allows for teachers to switch up from their norm. 

As I read this article, I kept asking myself these research questions to see how my responses compared to the majority of those surveyed. Most of my responses were pretty consistent to the majority, with a few exceptions. One of my exceptions being that I use a laptop computer as opposed to a desktop. Also, The main source of multimedia that I use in my classroom would be Canvas, my LMS, as compared to the main source of the majority being PowerPoint. I would be curious to see if this survey was sent out again to see now, in 2018, what the main source of multimedia used in classrooms is. I believe that there would be some new responses added to their list. 

Overall, this article provided some insightful pieces of information regarding teachers uses of technology and multimedia in the classroom. They concluded that teachers are interested in using technology and multimedia in the classroom, as well as being interested in training to improve their multimedia and technology use in their classrooms.