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.