SAMR’s "Teach Above the Line" Goal Misses the Mark

Disclaimer: While this post starts with a heading that seems to bash the ed tech model SAMR, read on to see that it is not the tool, but the use of the tool that is evaluated.

Welcome to take three of the writing of this blog - a critique of SAMR.  

Round one was soapbox slam on the tendency of this model to be used as a challenge for teachers to “Teach above the line.”  (I have a hard time with any educational challenge that doesn’t start with learning.)  

Round two, I became so buried in research trying to uncover the impetus and intent of SAMR that my work sounded more like a research paper than a blog.

Take 3 - SAMR Uncovered

With a teacher’s drive to transform education, Dr. Ruben Puentedura developed the SAMR model to help teachers understand the applications and effect of technology use in the classroom.  A relatively simple four tier system, SAMR is further divided into two levels.  

The first level of SAMR is where technology is used to adapt manual tasks (Substitution - Tier 1) and to improve upon manual tasks (Augmentation - Tier 2).  The effect size (amount of learning and growth that can be attributed to a teaching technique) is relatively low for these two uses of technology.  

The second level is where Puentedura feels real transformation exists.  Modification (Tier 3) is the opportunity for technology to totally change the way typical tasks are executed (Think blogs where peer and public commentary drives editing and revision instead of teacher-centered instruction of a hand written or even typed journal).  Redefinition, the highest tier in the second level, describes a scenario where technology opens the door for entirely new learning tasks not previously possible with textbooks and research based Internet use.

By Lefflerd (Own work) [CC BY-SA 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0)], via Wikimedia Commons

The Value of SAMR

I mentioned that research has been done to measure effect size on learning of each tier of SAMR. While this research isn’t easy to find and is not explicitly revealed in the infographic by Dr. Puentedura, the effect size increases through the progression of Substitution up through Redefinition. Effect size research can help an instructor create lessons and identify resources that will maximize student learning, and SAMR, in turn, could be used as a reminder of these effect sizes when a teacher evaluates an ed tech tool.

As a clear example of the applications of technology in instruction, SAMR can also be used to help create professional development opportunities for teachers.  The trend of micro-credentialing could occur at each tier of SAMR.  This could support the development of technology pedagogy as described in the TPACK model.  (I’ll refrain from diving into TPACK, but here is a link to a video on the topic created by educator Travis Bohon.)

The Shortfalls of SAMR

Too often, it seems that professional development in the area of ed tech leans toward how to use specific technology tools (totally an opinion, I have done no research on this). I think this tendency overshadows tools like SAMR and causes a parallax where viewers overly concerned with HOW to use ed tech tools instead of WHY to use ed tech tools see SAMR as a way to determine the worthiness of an app instead of the appropriateness of an app.  

At risk of offending the author, I’ll illustrate this shortfall with a post from Getting Smart - a website I value as a professional.  In her 2013 piece, "Using SAMR to Teach Above the Line", ed tech guru Susan Oxnevad shares her experience attempting to find a model for technology integration that would stick. Enthusiastic about Apple's adoption of SAMR, Oxnevad describes examples of her personal exploration of lesson design and technology integration using Dr. Puentedura's model. At the close of her article, Oxnevad celebrates the SAMR model and applauds a Chicago-area instructional coach who challenged educators in her district to "Teach above the line." The "line" referred to by the instructional coach and Oxnevad is the division between the Substitution/Augmentation levels of SAMR and Modification/Redefinition.  The line that delineates useful technology applications from transformative technology applications.

Teaching “above the line” ignores pedagogy which would have teachers choose tools that best support a learner.  Instead, this mantra pushes teachers to find good tools instead of finding good strategies.

Even Dr.Puentedura writes:

It is important to note that no particular "quality" label should be attached to any of the tiers. Thus, the introduction of a Tier I tool rather than a Tier IV tool may be perfectly appropriate, if it best suits the pedagogical goals at hand. (Puedentera 2003)

I’ll use the words of Associate Professor of Library & Information Science Lucy Santos Green to sum up my thoughts on this shortfall:

If the misuse of technological models hurts our ability to be effective technology leaders, then the emphasis we place on technology over pedagogy may negate our influence altogether. (Santos Green 2014)

In closing, SAMR is reference tool not an evaluation tool and learning needs to be the focus of instructional planning. I’ll leave you with a video where students explain SAMR, but leave viewers with the very important reminder, “...the ultimate outcome for integrating technology should be simple: maximizing student success.”  

References:
Puentedura, Ruben (2003). A Matrix Model for Designing and Assessing Network-Enhanced Courses. Retrieved from http://www.hippasus.com/resources/matrixmodel/index.html

Santos Green, Lucy (2014). Through the Looking Glass - Examining Technology Integration in School Librarianship. Knowledge Quest, 43(1), 36-43. Retrieved from: http://www.lucysantosgreen.com/uploads/6/8/3/3/6833178/through_the_looking_glass.pdf