A class I am taking for my Masters of Teaching has been learning about Dr. Ruben Puentedura's SAMR model of integrating technology into the classroom. The SAMR model is, on the surface, pretty simple. Each letter represents a different level of integration:
S- Substitution; using new technology to replace an old technology without any functional change.
Ex: using a smart board rather than a standard white board.
A- Augmentation; the new technology offers an increase in functionality.
Ex: using an interactive white board tool such as Explain Everything , that allows students to further detail their work.
M- Modification; the new technology redesigns parts of the original task.
Ex: Students add audio to their presentation and allow the presentations to be saved and available for later viewings. (You can watch only a few seconds of the below video to get the gist.)
S- Substitution; using new technology to replace an old technology without any functional change.
Ex: using a smart board rather than a standard white board.
A- Augmentation; the new technology offers an increase in functionality.
Ex: using an interactive white board tool such as Explain Everything , that allows students to further detail their work.
M- Modification; the new technology redesigns parts of the original task.
Ex: Students add audio to their presentation and allow the presentations to be saved and available for later viewings. (You can watch only a few seconds of the below video to get the gist.)
R- Redefinition; the new technology allows for the creation of a completely new task which was unimaginable before.
Ex: Students share their presentations with their teacher and a broader audience outside of their classroom. This would allow for new learning experiences which would have not been possible before.
As with any education model, there are pros and cons to SAMR. A major con that sticks out to me is the general idea that each level is better than the last. This causes educators to feel they must constantly be moving up the levels no matter what they are teaching or the learning outcome they are aiming for. Because of this mindset, some levels are skipped or overlooked when they are in fact the best method to be used for the specific situation.
Although this is a big con, I find more pros with the SAMR model. This model helps teachers brainstorm new ways to integrate technology into the classroom. This brainstorming gives technology a purpose. Instead of technology being the learning outcome, SAMR allows for educators to use technology as a tool to achieve a specific learning outcome.
In my opinion, as long as educators determine their students learning needs first and THEN decide what level of the SAMR model is appropriate, this model is a useful tool to provide engaging and meaningful lessons. Below is a simple flow chart I put together of how I would determine which level of the SAMR model is most appropriate for the learning outcome of a specific task.
Excellent post, Erin! Your flow map can help educators think through some of the potential purposes and uses of the SAMR model in the instructional planning process. I particularly like how your post honors the substitution and augmentation levels and encourages teachers to make purposeful choices about technology integration.
ReplyDeleteLove this post! I agree with you about the major con with the SAMR model. Even though you should always be moving forward and "getting better", it is okay to use some older technology as well. There will always be some new app or website released and as teachers we just have to pick the best that work well with our classrooms and ourselves!
ReplyDeleteThis was a really good post. First off, I like how the layout was. It made it visually fun for me as the reader and kept my attention on the page. Also, I love how you incorporated pictures and videos so the reader can further understand the processes you talked about such as the SAMR model. You also broke down steps/processes very well that made it easier for the reader to understand.
ReplyDelete