I did not use the SAMR model at the time for creating an synchronous debate online, which worked very effectively in developing students' critical thinking and communications skills while achieving the learning outcome for the Unit, but I could see how it could have been. I also ran successfully asynchronous research e-clinics to enhance students' completion time one month prior to the due date for their master's theses. I have attached the results of those technology integration initiatives as well as a study that used the SAMR for successfully integrating technology into teaching and learning.

Best regards,

Debra

https://www.researchgate.net/publicliterature.PublicLiterature.search.html?type=keyword&search-keyword=SAMR+model+for+integrating+technology&search-abstract=&search=Search

Conference Paper Piloting Graduate Research E-clinics Toward Completion of Ma...

Conference Paper Debating: A Dynamic Teaching Strategy for Motivating Student...

It is very interesting that methodology, but I have been unable to find so much

Hi Debra - I don't see you attachment?

It is the first link in my post and you have to scroll thru the studies and choose the one that is suitable for you.

Best regards,

Debra

 Hi Debra - Sorry - I seemed to be having a little trouble with my browser.  Interesting publications but not quite what I was looking for.  I wanted peer-reviewed  papers focusing directly on the use the SAMR framework.  These are tangential articles and while helpful do not provide the kind of support required for what I would call "evidence-based teaching. The problem is that MANY teachers are boards are using this model without even questioning it.  This is a phenomenon I see all to often.  Still looking ;-)

Hi Robin

Very relevant question. And yes, the model is really appealing indeed.

I haven't either found any notable evidence of its effectiveness. However, I think SAMR may rather be considered as a classification tool for assessing the level of technology adoption. Nevertheless, also in this regard there are problems with the model:

1) The model addresses technology at a task level. E.g. what role does technology play in a given learning activity. Not what role tech has on a higher level, such as module or institutional level. Which, I guess, are more relevant when looking at tech adoption in education on a more general level (as I assume you are).

2) The model assumes that technology adoption is - more or less - an one-dimensional scale. I think this is problematic. In particular if you are using the model for assessing tech adoption on a module or institutional level. I.e. technology may completely redefine one or more learning activities (as described in Puenteduras’ examples); however, at the same time the intervention may be small-scale and only influence minor aspects of the teaching practice: is the teaching practice then redefined or merely augmented? Also tech and pedagogical innovation may not necessarily go hand-in-hand and thus at least one dimension for each of these aspects is required to assess tech adoption. 

Personally, I am working on fitting the model into my context working with development of (science) higher education. Thus, I've developed a revised version of the SAMR model for my context (cf. attached paper, page 184), where the model is now made more concrete according to tools and pedagogical models promoted at our university, and used for classifying tech adoption at a module level. However, that version is not without problems either and it is sometimes misunderstood as a blended learning vs. online learning scale.

Good luck with your research. Would be really interesting to hear what you discover.

Best wishes,

Mikkel

http://ascilite.org/conferences/dunedin2014/files/fullpapers/146-Godsk.pdf

Article Efficient Learning Design--Concept, Catalyst, and Cases

Mikkel - thank you for your detailed and thoughtful response.  I too, feel there is something to this organization BUT one problem is that boards are embracing it well before it has been tested.  And maybe that is not a huge problem , but as you say, it is incomplete and more descriptive, not prescriptive.  Bottom line is that one has to look at one learning outcomes and intent as opposed to trying to move on up the grid to modification and redefinition. Mind you, the latter two levels might lead to better learning outcomes.  Perhaps the categorization is saying "don't use technology simply for the sake of using technology" (e.g., substation and augmentation) - The technology should add something - augment.  The other key missing details is how one moves to the last to levels and whether one is doing that just for the sake of saying "I am doing something significant "  Bottom line is "How do we use technology in a meaningful way?".  I will be interested in reading our work.

Hi Robin

> Perhaps the categorization is saying "don't use technology simply for the sake of using technology" (e.g., substation and augmentation) - The technology should add something - augment. 

Good point. I think that one of the benefits of the model is that it may encourage some educators to reach the higher levels ('gamification for professors' ;-) ). The problem is then that the redefinition level is not necessarily better than the augmentation and modification level if you already have an effective blended practice.

BTW: just came across this literature review by Kirkwood and Price (2014), which you may finde interesting. In Table 1 & 2 (pp. 40-41) they operate with a two dimensional understanding of tech in education. They call it 'Nature of intervention or study' and 'Conception of enhancement’; however, I guess on more simple terms it is 'role of technology' and 'affordances'.

http://oro.open.ac.uk/36675/1/TEL%20in%20Higher%20Education-What%20is%20enhanced%20and%20how%20do%20we%20know.pdf

Best wishes,

Mikkel

@Mikkel - Wow.  I think are dead on here.  The goals of the framework is to push past limited use, but the seemingly automatic perceived hierarchical nature does not adequately represent the end goal which is to maximize learning.  Thanks SO much for the article - looks great.  That will go to the top of my reading list!

I appreciate your contribution here.

Robin

Hello

We also found the SAMR model interesting and think it may be a useful tool for teachers to reflect upon their use of technology. However, during our online search we also found this, rather sharp, open letter to Dr Puentedetura that you may want to read. 

http://spelvetenskap.blogspot.se/2013/10/open-letter-to-dr-ruben-puentedura.html

Best regards Ramón and Tomas Pettersson

@Ramon - Thank you so much for this letter - amazing.  I will try to contact the author and thank him.  My questions is now '"What is so attractive about the SAMR" model hat it is openly accepted in Sweden and Canada (and I am sure many countries, with question. " Is it because it is so simple and has a nice diagram that makes sense that teacher are drawn to it?  Because that is precisely what we need to do with "good", well supported research?

I would have to agree with the comments above.  It is a simplified model.  However, noting the resistance that is encountered when trying to promote newer technology use by teachers in the classroom, it is the simple steps that need to be taken.  Afterwards, this may lead to the teachers to be less resistant to 'trying' newer technological tools.  

@Farheen - You may be right, but of course evidence is needed.  That would be a different use of the SAMR model.  The one possible problem is that it may mislead instructors and the actually use of technology could  inhibit learning.  It might be that they are actually taking time to use technology in a counter productive manner.  In addition, we don't really want teacher to simply "use" technology -  There have to be solid pedagogical reasons - not just a slick, unsupported, albeit tempting metaphor like SAMR.

This seems very similar to the Dale Cone of Experience & how it permeated the education & training field years ago: e.g. see blog post https://www.worklearning.com/2015/01/05/mythical-retention-data-the-corrupted-cone/ I used Dale’s Cone of Experience as a research activity for my BEd students a few years back. When I did a review, it came down to some made up stats that some authors put in a paper to substantiate Dale’s theory—not done by Dale himself. Almost every following paper refered to the paper with the bogus data. Dale later discussed—would have to find reference—that it was based on his first-hand anecdotal evidence as a trainer/educator. No actual research basis.

Julia Hengstler Thanks for sharing the post about Dale Cone - Great resource to examine the nature of "Fake News" in education :-)

hi Robin,

I have been asked to teach the SAMR model and as you I have some reservations about the implicit message that more technology is better. I have bee using technology for 35 years or so as an educator and an artist so I am able to offer a unique perspective. Better for whom we may cynically ask in relation to that open letter. Was it ever answered? Where did you end up with this research? It seems to have stopped 3 years ago. Did you contact the author of the open letter. Perhaps their research was all the proof you needed. Hoping to hear from you as I am about to take a class and cannot simply espouse the virtues of a model that has very little in the way of empirical evidence to support it.

thank you

dr greg giannis

Greg Giannis Well I am still been unable to find much to support the SAMR approach. It is a neat metaphor for communicating the idea that you should use technology to improve learning, so "substitution" is probably not worth the time. Past that, the "model" is a bit fuzzy and not supported by much research that I could find. Robin

Thanks Robin

It is used in our school without question. Thank you. I will encourage my students to look at these "models" more critically.

Greg—one of the key criticisms beyond lack of research is that there is little consideration of the teaching context—in terms of students and/or schools re. Technology, skills, etc.

Another activity I did using SAMR references was have my students assess one of Puentedura’s slides about SAMR that appears to imply other research validates it by the way a table of research—including SAMR references inserted by Puentedura—is cited and structured. The table is actually adapted to show similarlities—but the studies listed came years BEFORE SAMR was proposed. I created a slide of this and deconstructed it and the implications with my edtech students to look at how presentation of information—intentional or otherwise—can be misleading and the importance to proper citation to avoid that.

@JuliaHengstler Solid point. Teaching context and learning goals are critical to the effective use of technology and the 4 categories offered in the SAMR model are too simple (although I expect simplicity is part of its appeal).

@GregGiannis There is still scant research to support the SAMR model - However, it is alive and kicking in a number of our boards. If you watch some of the "promotion" videos, I can see why. It offers a simplistic way of using technology -an easy message to understand. But,as you say, the critical question and teacher should ask is "How will technology help achieve the learning goals I am trying to address?".

Robin Holding Kay , I returned to this thread today because I had more questions about SAMR. I didn't find all that I was looking for here, but I found something elsewhere that might be helpful to you.

Hamilton, E. R., Rosenberg, J. M., & Akcaoglu, M. (2016). The Substitution Augmentation Modification Redefinition (SAMR) Model: A Critical Review and Suggestions for its Use. TechTrends, 60(5), 433–441. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-016-0091-y