Running head: THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE SAMR MODEL 1

Literature Review
The Effectiveness of the SAMR Model and its Effects on Enhancing Student Learning
Norma L. Verdugo
San Diego State University
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE SAMR MODEL 2

Introduction
The Substitution, Augmentation, Modification, and Redefinition (SAMR) model

represented as a ladder, is a four-level, taxonomy-based approach for selecting, using, and

evaluating technology in K-12 settings developed by Dr. Ruben Puentedura (Puentedura, 2006).

According to the International Society for Technology in Education (2016) this implementation

framework is based on the concept that technology can be used to Substitute, Augment, Modify

or Redefine learning activities and educators use it when planning lessons, assignments,

assessments and so forth (ISTE, 2016). With the current shift in education towards the

integration of technology, also referred to as Information and Communications Technologies

(ICT), as a key indicator of a high-quality education, many teachers have opted to adopt this

model in their instructional practice, which has led to its implementation in K-12 education,

academia and professional development.

However, due to the rapid pace with which educational technology adoption came into

fruition and many educators hastily adopting the SAMR framework, there has not been much

opportunity for evaluation on the efficiency of this model. As Friedman (2016) describes, the

accelerating speed of scientific and technological innovations possibly outpacing the capacity of

the average human being to adapt. He goes on to describe that the rate of technological change

is now accelerating so fast that it has risen above the average rate at which most people can

absorb all these changes (Friedman, 2016). Consequently, technological innovation accelerated

the transformation of education without providing educators much time to evaluate this

framework for fear of falling behind. Therefore, it is imperative to pause, analyze and evaluate

this model to ensure that it is conducive towards academic achievement, as well as its efficiency

in preparing teachers to accomplish this.

THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE SAMR MODEL 3

The purpose of this review is to examine the effectiveness of the SAMR model as an

implementation framework for educators when integrating technology in their practice. This

review will also examine the degree to which SAMR enhances student learning, specifically

given how the purpose of this model is to encourage teachers to move up from lower to higher

levels of teaching with technology, which according to Puentedura, leads to higher (i.e.,

enhanced) levels of teaching and learning (Hamilton, Rosenberg & Akcaoglu, 2016). By looking

at the ways by which this model guides the use of technology in improving students learning

experiences will provide useful insight in measuring the effectiveness of this framework.

In order to better understanding the SAMR model, and be able to gauge its effectiveness

in enhancing student learning, there needs to be an analysis of each of the four-levels in detail.

The bottom level, the Substitution level, consists of what is described by Puentedura as

technology acting as a direct tool substitute, with no functional change (Puentedura, 2009). In

other words, when one is in this level one is merely substituting digital technology for analog

technology (Hamilton, et al., 2016). The next level, the Augmentation level, occurs when

technology acts as a direct tool substitute, with functional improvement and the function of

the task or tool positively changes in some way (Puentedura, 2006; Hamilton, et al., 2016). It is

important to note, that both the Substitution and Augmentation levels are found in the

Enhancement dimension of the model. As one moves up the ladder, one reaches the

Modification level, where technological devices allow for significant task redesign

(Puentedura, 2006). Lastly, the highest level of the model, the Redefinition level is where

technology allows for the creation of new tasks, previously inconceivable (Puentedura, 2006).

Equally important to mention, both the Modification and Redefinition levels are part of the

Transformation dimension of the model. Given that, the SAMR model is based on a taxonomy-
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE SAMR MODEL 4

based approach the model represents the idea that teachers more effectively use technology

when they enact modification or redefinition, rather than substitution or augmentation

(Hamilton, et al., 2016). Therefore, for the purpose of this review, when instructional practices

and/or teachers have reached either the Modification and/or Redefinition levels this will be

considered as effectiveness. This is in sync with Puenteduras advance (of) the idea that better

learning outcomes are achieved at the modification and redefinition levels of the SAMR model,

rather than through a systematic process of evaluating the impact of different uses of technology

(Hamilton, et al., 2016).

Methodology of Review

The research studies chosen for this literature review focused on teacher application of

the SAMR model in their instructional practices, its execution and results in terms of student

enhancement. The databases used include EBSCOhost Academic Search Premier, LearnTechLib,

ProQuest Research Library and Taylor & Francis Online. Moreover, the following online

journals and organizational websites were accessed for online research articles and critical

reviews: Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, Journal Curriculum Studies, Tech

Trends, The Social Studies, Hippasus, Boise State University Theses and Dissertations,

International Journal of e-Education, e-Business, e-Management and e-Learning, Dr. Ruben

Puenteduras Blog and the International Society for Technology in Education. When deciding on

which literature to review, it was best to use research conducted in the last 17 years accounting

for the beginning of the 21st century and when Puentedura developed the SAMR model

approximately six years later. Therefore, the range in dates from the research and information

collected are from 2000 to the present.

THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE SAMR MODEL 5

Overview of Research Studies

Methodologies

The research studies selected for this literature review include five case studies given

involving stakeholders ranging from a higher-education institution, two middle schools and an

elementary school. They include a comparative study involving qualitative and quantitative

approaches undertaken to find out the actual causes of slow pedagogical integration at Makerere

University in Uganda (Jude, et al., 2014); a case study of two social studies classrooms

researching the use of the SAMR and TPACK models as reflective tools (Hilton, 2016); and a

case study of teachers professional development in instructional technology (Holland, 2001). In

addition, the case study involving an elementary school examines staff development in regards to

improving teacher practice in technology integration (Ledford, 2016). Lastly, there is research

also drawn from a critical review of the SAMR model using theory and prior research (Hamilton,

et al., 2016); Dr. Puenteduras own explanations of the SAMR model (Puentedura, 2006); and

information gathered from the International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE, 2016).

Findings of the Review

Benefits

Given the increased popularity of Dr. Ruben Puenteduras SAMR model in 2012, six

years after its creation, this model has become a well-known tool in facilitating the acquisition

of proficiency in modern consumer technologies and software for both staff and students with the

hope of promoting 21st century skills (Cummins, 2014; Hilton, 2016). Furthermore, Apples

endorsement of the SAMR model, provided credence to its usefulness as a framework for

improving technology integration (Oxnevad 2013; Hilton, 2016). Therefore, it comes as no

THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE SAMR MODEL 6

surprise that the model has been used by many and ultimately given results to those who have

used it.

According to the Hiltons (2016) findings, one indicator that vouches for its functionality

is how easy it is to apply as a reflective lens. This allows educators to learn more from

thinking about their technology integration from a SAMR perspective and be able to generate

ideas about ways to modify future instruction to better make use of the available technology

(Hilton, 2016). Moreover, research shows that it is easier to connect this model to student-

centered design and easily identify opportunities to imbed technology (Hilton, 2016). These

features are definitely conducive towards the integration of technology in the classroom given

that teachers, especially those who do not feel very technologically literate, can gradually apply

the model in their practice. As more self-reflection takes place in curriculum design as a result of

SAMR, teachers can even use it as a scaffold to engage in the active learning process of

developing and refining lessons moving toward higher student outcomes (Keane, Keane &

Blicbau, 2013; Ledford, 2016).

When compared to the Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK)

framework, the alternate leading educational technology model, SAMR fares well considering

that TPACK is the older of the two models and maintains the larger share of published works

explaining both the theory and its use (Hilton, 2016). The ease with which educators can

implement the SAMR model undermines the overly complex TPACK model whose ideal to

strive and function in the center of the model is often seen challenging due to practical

technology concerns (Hilton, 2016).

THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE SAMR MODEL 7

Enhancing Student Learning and Effectiveness

While reviewing the findings of the integration of SAMR in instruction, one notices the

limited amount of information regarding its effects on student learning. This is further reinforced

through the assertion that there were only 8 articles available containing the keyword SAMR

in the Electronic Search Information for Education Research Complete Database (March 2015)

and the Education & Information Technology Digital Library Database (May 2015) from 2010-

2015 (Ledford, 2016). With the rise in popularity that SAMR endured in 2012, it is difficult to

understand the reasons for this minimal amount of publications.

Given this reality, however, one can only deduce that the model is developing students

learning experiences. For instance, given the modeling of transformative instruction that this

model provides, the role of teachers at these levels is becoming more of a facilitator as opposed

to a deliverer or content thereby resulting in constructivist practices (Tangney & Bray, 2013;

Ledford, 2016). This demonstrates a definite enrichment in learning since it is developing

students into becoming independent thinkers, practicing self-direction, which leads to critical

thinking and problem solving, the first of the seven survival skills for the New World of Work

(Wagner, 2008).

Similarly, just as there are difficulties associated with finding research on the SAMR

models effect on student learning, it is equally challenging finding assessments on its

effectiveness. Even though for the purpose of this review it was established that effectiveness

would be measured on teachers ability to move up the ladder and be in the Transformation

dimension either at the Modification or Redefinition level this is not a fair evaluation. One thing

that resulted from these findings was learning how the SAMR model does not function in a

hierarchical fashion and as currently visualized, mischaracterized the practical application of

THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE SAMR MODEL 8

SAMR in the classroom (Hilton, 2016). Although the model suggests, because of it being in the

form of a ladder, that it functions like Blooms Taxonomy it is not the case and teachers should

not strive, or consider it a measure of effectiveness, reaching the higher levels while ignoring the

lower ones. There is no specific measure of how effective this framework is since it only

provides a means for examining each learning task to determine depth and complexity of

technology integration (Kirkland, 2014: Hilton, 2016). This conclusion, however, leads to many

challenges and disadvantages resulting from the application of this model.

Challenges and Disadvantages

Although many educators opt for implementing the SAMR model as the best means

towards educational technology, very few understand the implications and challenges associated

with it. Hamilton, et al. (2016) provide a critical review of the SAMR model based on theory and

prior research and framed by three challenges: the absence of context, an emphasis placed on

product over process, and the hierarchical structure of this model. In terms of absence of context

it is argues that the model emphasizes the types of technology teachers should uses to move

themselves up the hierarchical continuum of SAMR, giving primacy to technology rather than

good teaching (Hamilton, et al., 2016). There also needs to be clarification in terms of

understanding and applying the SAMR model, since it is many used in fragmented ways, which

leads to further complications on its application. Lastly, in regards to its design, its taxonomic

format accounts for teachers placing more value on higher tasks or levels suggesting that it is

the technology, rather than a teachers goals and learning objectives that guide pedagogy and

practice (Hamilton, et al., 2016).

There also exist various concerns on the validity of this model since there is not yet a

theoretical explanation of the SAMR model in the peer-reviewed literature or has it been
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE SAMR MODEL 9

critically analyzed in the peer-reviewed literature (Hamilton, et al., 2016). Considering this

model is relatively new and there still does not exist sufficient investigation, there are those who

even consider it irresponsible to use and caution the use of this simplistic model as part of the

development of technology integration programs or professional learning (Green, 2014;

Ledford, 2016). Moreover, when trying to disprove the concerns raised, by going to the source

and researching Puenteduras findings and blog, it confirms that indeed the models origins can

only be traced back to the developer using the model as part of his lectures and educational

consultancy as opposed to emerging as a result of research with teachers (Ledford, 2016). As

many demand, and the literature infer, there is a need for further development of the SAMR

model, either by the author himself or members of academia, as well as more research being

done in order to fairly assess this model.

Conclusion

Based on the findings of the empirical research conducted on the SAMR model there is

still much to be done in order to fully understand and assess the SAMR model as a framework

for the integration of technology in education; let alone measure how it enhances student

learning. However, this literature review has proved to be very useful in providing insight into a

model that alongside the TPACK framework is revolutionizing the way educators think about

and reflect on the role that technology plays in the development and application of 21st century

skills in education.
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE SAMR MODEL 10

References
Friedman, T.L. (2016). Thank You for Being Late. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Green, L. S. (2014). Through the looking glass: Examining technology integration in school
librarianship. Knowledge Quest, 43(1), 36-43.
Hamilton, E.R., Rosenberdg, J.M., Akcaoglu, M. (2016). The Substitution Augmentation
Modification Redefinition (SAMR) Model: a Critical Review and Suggestions for its
Use. Tech Trends. Retrieved from DOI 10.1007/s11528-016-0091-y.
Hilton, J. T. (2016). A Case Study of the Application of SAMR and TPACK for Reflection on
Technology Integration into Two Social Studies Classrooms. The Social Studies, 107:2,
68-73. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00377996. 2015.1124376

Jude, L.T., Kajura, M.A., & Birevu M.P. (2014). Adoption of the SAMR Model to Asses ICT
Pedagogical Adoption: A Case of Makerere University. International Journal of e-
Education, e-Business, e-Management, and e-Learning. Retrieved from
http://ijeee.org/Papers/312-CZ607.pdf
Ledford, D. M. (2016). Development of a Professional Learning Framework to Improve
Teacher Practice in Technology Integration. Boise State University Theses and
Dissertations. Retrieved from http://scholarworks.boisestate.edu/td/1082
Puentedura, R. R. (2013). SAMR: Moving from Enhancement to Transformation. Hippasus.
Retrieved from http://www.hippasus.com/rrpweblog/archives/.../SAMREnhancementTo
Transformation.pdf
Tangney, B., & Bray, A. (2013). Mobile technology, math education, & 21c learning. 12th world
conference on mobile and contextual learning (pp. 1-8). MLearn.
Wagner, T. (2008). The Global Achievement Gap. New York, NY: Basic Books.