Edu 340

University of Balamand
Zeina Naccour

SAMR Model
Purpose of this framework paper

The purpose of this framework paper is to gather different points of views, information, and facts

about the SAMR model through e-books, journals, and articles, then analyze the collected data

in a way to show where it is being used, how practitioners refer to this powerful framework to

check if the technological application is improving or transforming the learning process, its

strengths and challenges.

Description of the framework

The rapid growth of technology in education has become one among the foremost problems

explored by educational academics during the last two decades. Teachers are encouraged now,

more than ever, to use ICT (Information & Communications Technology) integrated learning

models to create a dynamic and proactive teaching and learning environment. The SAMR model

is one of the well-known frameworks that fully integrates technology and analyses how it

impacts teaching and learning activities.

Dr. Ruben Puentedura, the creator and current president of Hippasus, an academic consulting

firm, developed this Model. While he was a graduate student at Harvard University, he looked

into different technology solutions for including digital storytelling, yet couldn’t discover any

unique or particular tool. At that moment, he began his research journey and the SAMR Model

was first created in 2006.

This Model is designed to assist teachers in determining the extent of technology integration in

classrooms. It is frequently possible to make an effective impact and improve skills when an

2
educator promotes active learning and feels at ease with the tools he/she intends to use before

taking any task to a higher level. What we mean by active learning is assisting students in

developing critical and deep-thinking abilities; motivating their' interests in discovery, inquiry,

and investigation.

What does SAMR mean? SAMR is an abbreviation formed from the initial letters of

Substitution, Augmentation, Modification, and Redefinition. It is always represented to describe

the cognitive level that can be attained through the use of technology. It begins with Substitution,

where no functional change in teaching and learning is observed and ends with Redefinition,

where a major change is observed (creation of new tasks).

(Hilton 2015) explains the 4 levels and how they interrelate in terms of complexity and

transformative impact as below:

Substitution:

Substituting a basic traditional activity with one that is technology-integrated. Regardless of the

availability of technology, the action does not change.

Augmentation:

The integrated technological tool makes the task easier. The activity with and without the tool

differs a little. Change at this phase is noticeable.

3
Modification:

The modification allows considerable changes to an existing activity that would not be

achievable without technology.

Redefinition:

The redefinition is the creation of a totally different task that would be impossible to accomplish

without the use of technology.

These 4 levels are grouped under two categories: Enhancement & Transformation.

The above figure shows that Substitution & Augmentation are classified as “enhancement”

implying that the use of technology tools at this level acts as a direct tool substitution with no or

minimum functional improvement, whereas Modification and Redefinition are classified as

“transformation” indicating that new learning opportunities were provided and that would not be

possible without the technology. According to Puentedura's approach, any selected technology

4
tool will not assist in task transformation until it reaches the levels of modification or

redefinition. Moreover, the more the practitioner knows the tool and its affordances the more the

transformation is effective. “All these levels clearly depend on the user's knowledge of

integration and availability of the tools” (Hamilton 2016)

Environments where the SAMR framework is best applied

As defined above, the SAMR model is designed for a good understanding of technology

integration. Each level describes how infusing ICT tools in any activity will impact the outcome,

especially at the transformation level. Because this framework was first developed by Dr.

Puentedura to provide a common language across different disciplines, it’s commonly used in

schools, colleges, and universities (education sector). “The SAMR model, represented as a

ladder, is a four-level approach to selecting, using, and evaluating technology in K-12 education”

(Hamilton 2016).

All educators use this framework to create, develop and integrate digital learning experiences in

their classrooms with the main objective of reforming the learning experience. For example, at

the Substitution level, in an elementary division, a science teacher uses a digital form of a set of

test questions instead of a hard copy. At the Augmentation level, grade 8 learners are requested

to use hand-held devices to simultaneously read and listen to individual digital stories during an

English session. Technology integration at the Modification level necessitates a significant task

redesign. In a secondary science session, a teacher infuses an interactive simulation of light with

the option of variables that can be changed by students instead of explaining the chapter and

watching a documentary. Using technology at the Redefinition level aims at creating a new task.

5
Fourth graders are required to, individually, present their opinion about air pollution through an

edited video, then post it into the forum for feedback.

Moreover, the article “Using technology integration frameworks in vocational education and

training” explains that VET colleges in countries like Australia have incorporated new

technologies into their courses, most recently digital technologies, as a result of the rapid

changes to work brought on by disruptive technologies. Although the main purpose behind this

article is to investigate the use of technology integration frameworks into courses. Yet, we can

consider it as proof that the SAMR framework is adopted by some VET colleges to ensure a

smooth shift from traditional teacher-centered to constructivist student-centered. ” …The College

already used this framework as part of its processes for shifting to technology-integrated

learning, and it was therefore adopted as part of this research.” (Reich, Rooney & Lizier, 2020).

In my opinion, this framework can also be used in corporations. Although I couldn’t find any

trustworthy reference to back up this idea, yet, I think it can be adopted for integrating

technologies into the workplace to create a change since technology is a powerful tool in training

environments.

Strengths of the SAMR model

The SAMR model has many strengths. It has captivated the interest and imagination of many

educators who have the will to update their teaching process. Many educational institutions, such

as schools, colleges, and universities, have embraced this model to assess how thoroughly and

effectively technology is integrated into their curricula due to its relative simplicity and practical

appeal. For instance, (Reich, Rooney & Lizier 2021) referred to this model to evaluate this

6
infusion, in three russian universities, at the substitution, augmentation, and modification levels.

“…and the Substitution, Augmentation, Modification, and Redefinition (SAMR) model for a

holistic approach to investigating innovation integration in a university setting.” (Reich, Rooney

& Lizier 2021).

Moreover, this model is one paradigm that many people find useful for evaluating and reflecting

on Edtech uptake and implementation. Hilton (2015) listed the set of questions, mentioned by dr.

Puentedura, to motivate technology users consider the “how”, "why" and “what” behind Edtech

implementation. How will the instructional objectives improve or be revised as a result of these

new technological possibilities?

(Lyddon 2019) explains, in his article “A Reflective Approach to Digital Technology

Implementation in Language Teaching: Expanding Pedagogical Capacity by Rethinking

Substitution, Augmentation, Modification, and Redefinition”, The SAMR approach encourages

educators to experiment with new Edtech tools in order to create innovative and interesting

learning experiences for their students.. He adds that despite its unquestioning notion of

transformation's supremacy, the SAMR model can nevertheless be a useful stimulant for the

discovery of previously unconsidered options when utilized correctly and a motivator for

students to discover the content in non traditional ways. This may result in a pedagogical

capacity enhancement for classroom teachers within their scope of work. The strength is in its

application regardless of the discipline taught or grade level. Teachers who participated in the

study case of (Hilton 2015) were able to deliver their social studies lesson plans in different ways

when they looked at technology integration through the SAMR model.

7
This model if used correctly will even lead to a broadening of the purview for program

administrators and curriculum planners. (Lyddon 2019)

Criticisms of this framework

Although the SAMR model is seen as an effective technology integration framework to

transform the learning and teaching process, many critiques and challenges were highlighted

regarding its theoretical explanation, rigid structure, and the emphasis on product over process.

(Hamilton, Rosenberg & Akcaoglu 2016) explain these challenges in their research paper “ The

Substitution Augmentation Modification Redefinition (SAMR) Model: a Critical Review and

Suggestions for its Use”. In their opinion, teachers must feel at ease while integrating technology

into their activities and are required to select effective approved models that foster a deeper

understanding of teaching and learning rather than focus on the affordances or limitations of a

given tool to support and extend student learning with technology.

This model often overuses the prescriptions and neglects the complex conditions in which

technology integration happens. For instance, an english teacher in a high-poverty school setting

creates an activity for her students on WebQuest so that each one could independently investigate

different types of theater in middle age. However, she only has 3 classroom computers. Despite

the fact that the activity she created may rank higher on the SAMR ladder, in practice, it’s

impossible to implement it when ten students need to sit in front of one computer.

In addition to the above, (Hamilton 2016) and his colleagues proceed in the research paper to

present the second challenge “Rigid structure”. The emphasis in the SAMR model remains on

the levels of technology use that teachers should align with in order to progress along with the

8
hierarchical structure. This neglects the importance of focusing on how to use technology to

improve teaching and learning by modifying pedagogy or classroom practices.

Moreover, how the SAMR model is presented, gives the load on the end product over the

learning process. For example, a teacher who assigns an interactive research presentation through

an online tool of their preferences, will be focusing on the outcome, without any prior intention

he/she will be neglecting crucial steps related to the research process such as the understanding

of online presentation tools, using reputable resources….

Finally, (Lyddon 2019) points out an additional shortcoming, which is the ambiguity of the term

“Transformation”. For him, Dr. Puentedura should have been more specific in determining the

meaning of this term. “Despite its popularity, the SAMR model has several notable

shortcomings, not the least of which is its unspecified use of the variously understood term

“transformation….” .

9
 References

Drugova, E., Zhuravleva, I., Aiusheeva, M., & Grits, D. (2021). Toward a model of learning

innovation integration: TPACK-SAMR based analysis of the introduction of a digital

learning environment in three Russian universities. Education and information

technologies, 26:4, 4925 - 4942. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10514-2

Hamilton, E. R., Rosenburg, J. M., & Akcaoglu, M. (2016). The substitution augmentation

modification redefinition (SAMR) model: A critical review and suggestions for its use.

TechTrends, 60, 433–441. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-016-0091-y

Hilton, J. T. (2016). A case study of the application of SAMR and TPACK for refection on

technology integration into two social studies classrooms. The Social Studies, 107,

68–73. https://doi.org/10. 1080/00377996.2015.1124376.

Lyddon, P. A (2019). A reflective approach to digital technology implementation in language

teaching: Expanding pedagogical capacity by rethinking substitution, augmentation,

modification, and redefinition. TESL Canada Journal, 36:3, 186 - 200.

https://doi.org/10.18806/tesl.v36i3.1327

Reich, A., Rooney, D., & Lizier, A. (2021). Using technology integration frameworks in

vocational education and training, International Journal of Training Research, 19:2,

93-106. https://doi.org/10.1080/14480220.2020.1864447

10