Blog Post #4:Questioning SAMR and More…

This week I was introduced to the Substitution Augmentation Modification Redefinition (SAMR) Model through my online technology course and through an assigned reading by Hamilton, Rosenburg and Ackeaoglu (2016), The Substitution Augmentation Modification Redefinition (SAMR) Model: A critical Review and Suggestions for its Use. The article describes how the SAMR model is a four-level taxonomy-based approach for selecting, using and evaluating technology in K-12 settings (as cited by Puentedura, 2006). However, through critical analysis and review, Hamilton et al. (2016) outline that there are three major challenges with the model that I will discuss below.

Challenge 1: Absence of Context

• As cited by others in the article, the following contexts are not recognized in the SAMR Model: technology infrastructure and resources, community buy in and support, individual and collective student needs, and teacher knowledge/support for using technology.
• Hamilton et al. 2016 suggest that the SAMR model be revised to include context as a formal aspect of the framework that address learning outcomes, students’ needs and school/community expectations.
• I think this is critical, as context is everything in my teaching practice. Every class that I teach is so different because every child that makes up my class is unique and has varying learning needs. The SAMR model cannot be viewed as a one size fits all approach. As mentioned in the article, the SAMR model has been interpreted in different ways by different people, which I find as an educator, confusing (if I want to use the model as a concrete resource). The authors also outline that there are no theoretical explanations of the SAMR model through peer-reviewed literature.

Challenge 2: Rigid Structure

• The authors outline that within a taxonomy framework, the SAMR model dismisses the complexity of teaching with technology by defining and organizing teachers’ uses of technology in predefined ways. The SAMR model also suggests that teachers more effectively use technology when they enact modification or redefinitions rather than substitution or augmentation. My learning pod and I had an interesting discussion today about this. In Kindergarten and Grade 1, our technology usage reflects more on the substitution and augmentation levels. We think that in order to achieve the higher levels on the SAMR model, we need to teach skills and use technology at the lower levels first with our students. The importance of this type of learning does not seem to be reflected in the SAMR Model, as it seems to value and prioritize getting to the higher levels as soon as you can.
• The article suggests that the taxonomic format be revised to account for the dynamic nature of teaching and learning.

Challenge 3: Product over Process

• The goal of the SAMR model centers on changing a product rather than the learning process. This goal goes against my own teaching pedagogies as I believe that the learning process is more important than the final product, connecting to Salomon and Perkins, 2005 (as cited in the article).
• I also agree with this statement by Hamilton et al. (2016): “…technology plays a role in reaching learning outcomes but as long as objectives are reached, one instructional method or tool is not promoted over others.” As an educator, I try to teach a new concept to my students in many ways. I know that a hands-on activity might connect with some students, however, for other students, seeing a video might connect with them more on a particular concept. Technology can help enhance student learning but should not be promoted as the only/ultimate way to learn for every student.

The article inspired me to think more deeply about the SAMR model and question how it is being used and interpreted. I agree with Hamilton et al. (2016) analysis of the SAMR challenges and limitations. I believe that with more revision, research and supported theories, the SAMR model has the potential to be a more accessible resource for teachers. With my newly gained perspective, I wanted to see how the SAMR model is being used and interpreted out there in the Internet world. One of the first things that came up when I started to Google SAMR was: SAMR and Bloom’s Taxonomy. Here is a video explaining the SAMR model through one perspective and also an article on how the SAMR model connects to Bloom’s Taxonomy:

https://www.commonsense.org/education/articles/samr-and-blooms-taxonomy-assembling-the-puzzle

With my critical analysis lens on, immediately, my next question was: How relevant is Bloom’s Taxonomy in education, today? I then came across this article:

https://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/learning_deeply/2018/03/heres_whats_wrong_with_blooms_taxonomy_a_deeper_learning_perspective.html

Here is an interesting quote by the author of the article post, Ron Berger (2018):

“Almost every educator knows the Bloom’s Taxonomy cognitive framework. The related pyramid graphic has influenced curriculum and instruction since its introduction in 1956 and its revision in 2001. The problem is that both versions present a false vision of learning. Learning is not a hierarchy or a linear process. This graphic gives the mistaken impression that these cognitive processes are discrete, that it’s possible to perform one of these skills separately from others. It also gives the mistaken impression that some of these skills are more difficult and more important than others. It can blind us to the integrated process that actually takes place in students’ minds as they learn”.

This quote draws on some similar connections to Hamilton et al. (2016) critique of the SAMR model as it views the Bloom Taxonomy as rigid (seeing education more as a linear process). This is something I would perhaps be interested in exploring more on another day. It would be important to find relevant, academic sources that critique Blooms Taxonomy use in education, today. As the world changes, so does education!