So I’ve Been Thinking…Let’s Revisit SAMR
I can recall the first time I heard of the SAMR model. It was at an EdTechTeacher iPad Summit in Boston. I believe it was the fall of 2013. Like many I was immediately drawn to the model because of the ease of immediate entry to adoption of the model and language. One can easily understand the substitution phase (smart board / dry erase board OR digital document / paper) and paint a picture of tech use in their classroom.
While there are plenty of vocal critics of the model, I still think it has value.
As mentioned earlier, the ease of entry, common language and discussion that can emerge immediately justify use of the model. Yet, I still think it is worth revisiting the SAMR model in this post (and podcast episode) because in nearly all instances of content about the model, there are four critical approaches to interpretation that are missing.
Vertical Nature
I am often surprised how this is overlooked. There is something implied by the model being vertical, it isn’t neutral. One should make efforts to move “up” this vertical model to demonstrate meaningful use of technology. My concern here (and the primary reason to revisit the concept in this post) is that the implication that up is better has unintended consequences. The teacher with a clear goal and objective may interpret the model in a way that makes them revamp their classroom process. Yet, their classroom process, free of the SAMR model might be the ideal process for the intended purpose and goal. And yet, the purpose here isn’t to completely slam the model, I use it often in workshops. The vertical nature could be a healthy push to have teachers reconsider their practice. It is the mindset that moving “up” the model is best practice that is concerning.
“Previously Inconceivable”
I always have teachers in my workshops take a few moments to read through the sub heading of the Redefinition phase of the model. Again, I am surprised how the language is overlooked. I often ask groups how they plan on getting to this phase of the framework if the work is inconceivable. I might be misreading this, or reading too much into it, but I don’t see anyone on their own planning for the inconceivable. So, where do these new tasks come from? How does one climb the ladder? The answer is multifaceted. Colleagues, students, social media (ideas). Further, if one gets to the Redefinition phase and executes tasks that were previously inconceivable, those very tasks are quite conceivable the second time around. Two implications here. One, the vertical model immediately tells us that the task that was at one point Redefinition (top of the model) no longer is. Two, the model isn’t neutral. If a teacher is now bumped down a level, they may reflect on and reconsider their process. This implication isn’t inherently bad. However, it can create undue pressure on a teacher to reflect and possibly abandone their practice because of the term “inconceivable.”
Movement
This might be the sticking point for me. Vertical = move to the top and stay there. Let’s be more transparent about what classroom practice should really look like. There may be a very practical, meaningful and necessary practice that falls into the Augmentation phase. Yet, the vertical nature of the model implies move up and stay there. There needs to be more room for movement. The best analogy to address this problem is Carl Hooker’s SAMR Swimming Pool. Swimming and the pool implies movement. What happens when things are going terribly wrong? What happens when your students or you aren’t ready?
This isn’t to suggest one should sit in the shallow end, there is opportunity in the deep end.
Learning vs. Technology
Thanks for reading this far down…So if we are super creative, open to new ideas and capable of managing and executing on the inconceivable we have made it to the top of the model. My questions:
Did students have had a more meaningful experience?
Did students learn more or retain the information at a higher degree?
Were students engaged and own the process any better than if technology wasn’t used?
Clearly one could debate the outcome of operating at the Redefinition level. However, from my experience integrating technology and by reflecting on my practice it is clear that Redefinition with technology (top of SAMR) doesn’t necessarily imply that the student had an overall improved experience. Yet, it also doesn’t imply that they didn’t. What is critical here is to be completely transparent when using the SAMR model as a method to evaluate the way in which technology is being used in the classroom. I fall back on this:
Redefinition with technology does not necessarily mean there was an improved learning experience, but we can’t rule it out either.
