I’m as guilty as the next person for singing the praises of Puentedura’s SAMR model. I’ve blogged about it many many times, it’s included in my book ‘Perfect ICT Every Lesson’ too. Quite rightly so I believe. The problem I have with it, and others find this problem too, is that it is seen as being a taxonomy, a ladder upon which to be climbed. Redefinition is seen as being the creativity to Blooms or the sharing of Vygotsky’s Zones of Proximal Development – the top rung of a difficult ladder to climb.
The problem for me is, like any tool, technology is only as good as the person using it. Redefinition makes it a very exclusive club and if you’re looking to support those people in your establishment that aren’t confident using technology, asking them to ensure they aim for redefinition at every step; chances are they won’t be too keen to use technology.
The trick is, technology use is at its best when it is purposeful. When its use is linked closely to the learning outcomes of the learning sequence so that it enhances the learning experience.
App smashing is a great way to help young people hit redefinition in the work that they create. The problem with that is however that given time constraints and the fact that technology should serve the learning process – not dictate it; asking students to App Smash all the time can be simply a waste of time. For the avoidance of doubt I will say it clearly again; the use of technology should serve the learning process – not the other way around. That’s not to say that App Smashing shouldn’t happen. Purposeful learning can happen by compounding work created across different Apps. And it’s fun, thus engaging learners in the learning process. Just be mindful that if it isn’t purposeful – should we as educators be doing it?
I’m not the only one who is saying this. Take Mark Samberg’s recent post, “Why I’m done with SAMR“. He correctly identifies some worrying trends about education districts in the states and their desire to push educators to teach ‘above the line’. He also talks correctly, in my opinion, about where technology is dictating the learning. Technology can, given the right conditions, support educators to create transformational learning experiences. As noted in the diagram above with PCK, Mark goes on to talk about TPACK being a much better fit. Like Mark, I’m a big fan of TPACK too.
Miguel Guhlin compiles a number of these ‘anti-SAMR’ posts together in his post, “Tearing Down False gods: SAMR Pushback Begins” and it is a good read. Please do check it out, especially the link to LeiLani Cauthen’s article, “What’s Wrong with SAMR in Education?”
I do think that SAMR has its place. Absolutely. As LeiLani mentions, SAMR is a great “springboard” to inspire your thinking about learning using technology. Certainly it has helped me and I know it has helped countless others. It shouldn’t however be thought of as the holy grail and certainly not something where you should aim to hit redefinition every time – after all – SAMR is not a ladder!
This might be one of your posts that I agree with the most! It made me think again about Jeff Utecht’s SAMR circle. Here’s some more from Jeff about the circle.
Thanks so much for taking the time to comment Lissa. Very much appreciate it. I’ll check out those links. Thank you!
I’ve presented on SAMR before as well, and although I speak about how SAMR is a ladder, I try to be clear that redefinition is not the ultimate goal and its impossible to always “redefine” learning. I’m also clear that a ladder has two directions, and our purpose isn’t always to be at the top. Depending on our objective(s) and other factors, it’s ok to be a be a few steps up, in the middle, at the top, or down at the bottom.
The problem I think Michael is that inherently, the words up and down mean good and bad respectively. I’m definitely not saying SAMR is a bad thing. A few folk on Twitter have said that I’m saying things like SAMR is dead. I’m not. I’m just saying that successful tech integration is more than just SAMR and certainly requires more thinking than just Substitution to Redefinition.
Thanks so much for taking the time to comment.
I can understand the confusion of up/down = good/bad. I appreciate your blog post and the resources you shared as well. SAMR is definitely not the end goal and is only one piece of puzzle!
As our school recently talked about this, I had a number of staff confused by it (perhaps it was leadership that failed to explain). I explained to a few staff that I was introduced to it as a ladder of sorts, that ideally you want to focus of modifying and redefining but that you begin to use the other two to guide you to higher levels of ICT implementation. I also said that sometimes you are simply involved with augmentation or substitution.
I occasionally use the SAMR mode but have fallen off as I’m not often thinking about it. I am keen to read more about what you have written here as I don’t always believe one model fits all, but that you use the best tools for the right time.
A good analysis of SAMR Mark, however I’d context it further for the UK. In the USA there’s a much deeper focus on pedagogical frameworks when deploying technology because it’s done at a district level (and therefore millions are spent when they do purchase!) SAMR is the framework of choice there, and I agree that it should be used in conjunction (mainly with TPACK & Bloom’s) rather than isolation.
The difficulty for the UK is that barely anyone knows what SAMR is, bar the digital leaders and those at the cutting edge of edtech. The biggest challenge in the UK is not getting teachers to think outside of SAMR, but first get them to think about SAMR. SAMR trains individuals in metacognition, with which practice will develop the critical skills to evaluate technology’s use in it’s own right. TPACK is a superior model for institutional change / purposeful practice, however it’s much more intimidating for the average class teacher approaching it.
I’ve just released a article about approaching TPACK which I’ve included below:
http://www.innovatemyschool.com/industry-expert-articles/item/1438-edtech-mastering-the-device-vs-mastering-the-pedagogy.html
Best
Jay
Thanks for the link Jay, it’s good to see others finally starting to recognise its value. I know you are correct when it come to class teachers however when it comes to those I liaise with in schools directly, SAMR is a well-known animal now. The way that I describe it is that SAMR is a great place to start having a conversation about how you use technology in the classroom, as is TPACK. Those I speak with like TPACK too because whilst many will not know the PCK model directly, they will definitely know or at least understanding the connection between pedagogy and subject knowledge.
Thanks for taking the time to comment.
I agree with the message of this blog. Digital Learning is not about the tools used, nor is the SAMR Model a framework that completely defines digital learning or the use of digital tools in the classroom. It is certainly not a model in which you permanently achieve a level and stay.
I think that the SAMR Model and the analogy of a ladder are very appropriate. Our district completed a Digital Learning Initiative, including iPads for all of our elementary classrooms and will be expanding that initiative next year. We did utilize the SAMR Model as a guide for the integration and usage of digital tools into instruction and the analogy of a ladder. It was one piece of our staff development focused on effective digital practices for teachers.
I believe it is the responsibility of the digital leader to explain the analogy, not just say it. People use ladders for many different reasons, and they do not climb to the top and stay there. Each individual must choose the type of ladder necessary for the job at hand. Carpenters can change a light bulb with an extension ladder and remodel a kitchen with a stepladder, but they are not effective tools for each job. As teachers and leaders, we have to determine the right digital tools for the job, just like a carpenter must choose the right ladder for the task in a remodel. The ladder is a great visual that can explain how individuals use movement and the use of effective tools to complete tasks of multiple steps. However, it must be shared as that multi-directional guide to learning for students and staff.
The push back goes back to 2013! At least from a philosophical standpoint. http://spelvetenskap.blogspot.com/2013/10/open-letter-to-dr-ruben-puentedura.html
My own critical review focuses on the misleading graphics and complete lack of peer reviewed literature on SAMR. http://www.e-ohagan.com/a-critical-review-of-puenteduras-samr/