Krista Lind

C&T 770
Annotated Bibliography
30 July 2017

Introduction The SAMR model for technology integration has been used widely throughout the
United States as school districts are moving to one-to-one models of technology for the students.
The S stands for substitution, A-augmentation, M-modification, and R-redefinition. The goal for
all lessons is to reach the redefinition level. As a teacher in a new district that encourages
teaching at the R level, how can I adapt an already created lesson to fit this standard? If the
lesson does reach redefinition is it an effective way for the students to learn? How can we tell if
theyre learning due to the technology implementation?

1) Hamilton, E. R., Rosenberg, J. M., & Akcaoglu, M. (2016). The substitution augmentation
modification redefinition (SAMR) model: A critical review and suggestions for its
use.TechTrends, 60(5), 433-441. doi:http://dx.doi.org.www2.lib.ku.edu/10.1007/s11528-016-
0091-y.
Source summary
There has not been enough time to conduct numerous tests in order to determine
whether or not the SAMR model is effective. The model is not in context, is very rigid,
and the focus is on the product rather than the process of learning.
This article is a critical review of the model and suggests using the model for guidance
when creating a lesson rather than using it solely while preparing for a unit.
The intended audience includes educators and administrators who are interested in how
to integrate technology.
The authors are researchers from various American universities. From the beginning it
is very clear that they dont believe SAMR is the most effective way to use technology in
the classroom. They also state numerous times that technology shouldnt be used simply
to check a box for the district, rather it should add something that cant be understood
without it to the lesson.
Methodology of Source
The researchers state that there is still no theoretical framework to support the SAMR
model. They also state that there is little quantitative or qualitative research that exists to
support the framework.
Findings/conclusions
The goal of technology is to create a meaningful learning environment. The steps that
SAMR requires are not in context, so this objective is not reached. Technology should
play a supporting role in the classroom. SAMR focuses more on the end goal of using
technology rather than making sure the students learn something important from it.
The majority of the studies all agree that there is too little research to make a complete
decision about whether or not SAMR is effective.
Relevance
This article answers my question regarding the effectiveness of redefinition even if I
do reach that level of implementation. Based on Hamiltons critical review, SAMR is not
the appropriate way to adapt a lesson to include technology.
 The researchers seem to be so strongly against SAMR I wonder if theyve taken the
time to look at its advantages. Keeping material in context is important, but is it
necessary 100% of the time? It seems as if their critiques are keeping them from looking
at any of the positives that may be present.

2) Patton, D. L. (2015). A phenomenological narrative of teachers' implementation of 1:1

technology integration based on the SAMR model (Order No. 10110333). Available from
ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (1797424477). Retrieved from https://search-proquest-
com.www2.lib.ku.edu/docview/1797424477?accountid=14556
Source summary
It has been found that with more technology implementation in the classroom, the
content becomes more meaningful and student-centered. Integrating more technology by
using the SAMR model increases engagement and learning.
The purpose of the study was to determine how teachers implement 1:1 technology by
using the SAMR model.
The intended audience are educators, administrators, and professional development
producers.
The author Djara Patton is from Lamar University.
Methodology of Source
Phenomenological Narrative and Qualitative Study
The participants were Math and Science teachers who had taught at a single Texas high
school at least two years. There were seven teachers that were selected based on specific
criterion.
The phenomenological approach was decided because it allows for the participants to
share personal experiences. There are no theories to support SAMR so far in the research
community.
The teachers were interviewed once before the implementation, then received
professional development about SAMR, then interviewed a final time after using it in
their classrooms.
Findings/conclusions
The majority of the teachers used SAMR at the enhancement level within their
classrooms. (This is similar to the substitution level and increases student engagement.)
The teachers found that the most challenges they encountered were technology not
functioning and students not on task. They all agreed that more relevant professional
development needs to take place. A math teacher should be shown math apps rather than
general tools to use online.
Most teachers are finding that there is not enough professional development to
successfully make redefinition lessons. We have heard the descriptions of each level
multiple times, but we need specific examples based on our subject.
Relevance
Ive always been concerned about the off-task behavior becoming an issue when
implementing new technology. Although the goal is to increase engagement that doesnt
always occur. The teachers also found that the lowest level of SAMR is easier to reach
and its much more difficult to create lessons at the redefinition level.
 The source only spoke to seven teachers within the subjects of math and science. It
would be beneficial to hear from other content-area teachers and those with more SAMR
experience.

3) Dobransky, K. A. (2015). Technology use and integration by ohio's community college ESL
instructors (Order No. 3718258). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global.
(1717018448). Retrieved from https://search-proquest-
com.www2.lib.ku.edu/docview/1717018448?accountid=14556
Source summary
Technology can be effective when teaching ESL at an adult level. However technology
is expensive, so Dobransky hopes that her research will persuade the community college
to purchase more uses of technology.
Dobransky researched what level of SAMR was being used in an Ohio Community
Colleges ESL class along with how it was being utilized.
ESL teachers, so they can learn how effective technology is for ESL students
ESL teacher at multiple universities in Ohio
Methodology of Source
Mixed-Methods and Cross-Sectional, voluntary survey and individual interviews
9 Ohio Community College Campuses with ESL programs, from here professors were
contacted- 86 in total
SAMR has no theoretical background to support it
2013-2014
Findings/conclusions
The technology that is most often used in these ESL classrooms is Email followed by
Word Processing software. Based on the survey, the instructor is using more technology
than the students. The positives that were found when using technology were efficiency
and student motivation. The biggest challenge was unreliable technology
Once again we see that technology seems to increase student engagement and the most
common challenge is that technology doesnt work consistently.
Relevance
Im not entirely sure this research article proves much to guide my questions other than
most classrooms only use technology at the S and A levels. If the most frequently used
technology is email, thats only a substitution for other forms of communication.
Dobransky did not observe any uses of technology herself. The participants may not
have been accurate while completing the survey. Its also possible that they
misunderstood the purpose and answered incorrectly.

4) Aiyegbayo, O. (2014, August 25). How and why academics do and do not use iPads for
academic teaching? Retrieved July 6, 2017, from
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com.www2.lib.ku.edu/doi/10.1111/bjet.12202/full.
Source summary
The author argues that educators need to be trained in technology when they receive
new opportunities with iPads rather than expecting them to learn on their own.
The purpose was to analyze how university professors used their iPads in the
classroom.
 The intended audience are educators, administrators, and professional development
producers.
Aiyegbayo is a professor at the University of Huddersfield. His focus is on e-learning
in academics.
Methodology of source
Mixed-Methods, quantitative and qualitative data were collected from an online
survey, qualitative data was also collected from interviews
84 professors responded to the survey
Theoretical approaches that informed the research
3 month time period during 2012
Findings/conclusions
The majority of professors in the study do use their iPads in the classroom. The
teachers that didnt use iPads stated that they either liked other technology better or that
they didnt know how to successfully use the iPad. The educators who do use the iPads
only used them at a substitution or augmentation level.
Once again, we see that teachers have not received the professional development
support needed to use technology successfully in their classrooms. If they are using it, its
at a very low level.
Relevance
Im starting to see that people arent against using technology, but in most cases the
devices have been thrown at us and said here, give this a try. No teacher has the free
time to experiment with the technology ourselves, we need to be given specific examples.
This research article was referring specifically to iPad use. In our high schools the
students have MacBooks.
The question is, does anyone have the expertise with SAMR to teach other
professionals how to use it effectively?

5) Irish, S. J. (2017). A teacher retrospective of a decade of one-to-one devices (Order No.

10256041). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (1873081661). Retrieved
from https://search-proquest-com.www2.lib.ku.edu/docview/1873081661?accountid=14556.
Source summary
Irish wanted to determine what the greatest advantages of a 1:1 approach are within a
classroom.
Discuss with teachers whether or not a 1:1 technological approach is effective in the
classroom. If so, what are the best practices. If not, what are the drawbacks?
8 educators in a district with a 1:1 method in Western Maine
SAMR approach and TPACK (Technological, pedagogical and content knowledge)
Methodology of source
Case study, survey to determine whether or not the teachers fit the criterion
2 groups of participants: teachers who had taught both with and without the 1:1 system
and teachers who have only taught with a 1:1 system
3 challenges when implementing 1:1 are resistant teacher, lack of professional
development and lack of strong leadership
Hour long interviews were conducted
Findings/conclusions
 The teachers stated that the equity of 1:1 levels the playing field for all students, it
eases communication between student and teacher and allows for more student
differentiation. They also said that it gives students access to more information. They
mentioned the biggest challenge as technology glitches.
Its unfortunate that so many articles are discussing technology glitches as the biggest
issue. This is something that should be so easily solved, but we dont have the resources
yet to fix it.
Relevance
This research showed me that even experienced teachers have issues with technology.
However, as time goes on we can predict what problems may occur and they can be
avoided.
The school district is in rural Maine. These findings might not be relevant to a 6A high
school in suburban Kansas.

6) Romrell, D., Kidder, L. C., & Wood, E. (2014). The SAMR Model as a framework for
evaluating mLearning. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 18(2), 79+. Retrieved from
http://go.galegroup.com.www2.lib.ku.edu/ps/i.do?p=AONE&sw=w&u=ksstate_ukans&v=2.1&i
t=r&id=GALE%7CA437059376&asid=582c642a84da778b1e4ae5d3700ef718.
Source summary
Romrell provides examples of each level of the SAMR model to show how it can
benefit mobile learning.
MLearning is growing rapidly and it needs a way to be evaluated. Is SAMR an
effective way to do so?
The intended audience are educators, administrators, and professional development
producers.
Romrell believes SAMR to be an effective framework to guide mLearning in the
classroom.
Methodology of source
The SAMR method was used with mLearning
mLearning is defined as utilizing a personal mobile device both inside and outside the
classroom in order to create a deeper understanding of the topic.
Findings/conclusions
Substitution is the easiest way to use mLearning, it also has shown to have academic
benefits. Augmentation requires more preparation and effort on the professors end; it is
also rarely a personalized learning experience. Modification and Redefinition are the
levels at which learning is truly realized.
This is the first article to state that SAMR is actually beneficial in the classroom. The
other articles were more hesitant to take a stance, but Romrell clearly believes in its use.
Relevance
This article showed a variety of ways that SAMR could be implemented in the
classroom including various lessons that dont necessarily apply to one subject. For
example, medical students received a text twice a day with a definition of a medical term.
This helped them remember the information when seeing it so frequently. I could use that
idea with new Spanish vocabulary in my classroom.
 Researchers found that the activities completed with technology need to be graded and
included in the students final grades, otherwise they will not complete them to their best
effort.

7) JACOBS-ISRAEL, M., & MOOREFIELD-LANG, H. (2013). Redefining Technology in

Libraries and Schools. Teacher Librarian, 41(2), 16-18.
Source summary
Jacobs researches whether or not technology is enhancing education or fully
transforming the way education is functioning.
She reviews a number of websites that detail the best technology tools for teaching to
determine whether or not the lists are effective and beneficial.
Teachers planning to implement technology into their classrooms.
Jacobs works in the of New York City Department of Education. She sits on a number
of task forces, one regarding common core. Due to this and her career it seems she would
want to find effective websites rather than waste teachers time.
Methodology of source
Jacobs did not use test subjects because she was reviewing a number of websites. She
said the list of resources on these websites have been growing rapidly over the past
couple years.
Findings/conclusions
She finds that the SAMR model is effective when implementing technology into the
classroom.
This is one of the only articles that vouches for SAMRs effectiveness. The rest stated
that there was not enough research, but this doesnt seem to be a problem for Jacobs.
Relevance
Jacobs was helpful in that the article lists a number of examples at each level of the
SAMR model. Sometimes its difficult to understand them at a realistic level rather than
theoretical.
Jacobs doesnt take the time to question the use of SAMR. She accepts it as if its
successful and applies that to the various websites she endorses.

8) Harris, C. (2014). For 1:1, Content is Key. School of Library Journal, 60(8). Retrieved July
30, 2017, from https://web-b-ebscohost-
com.www2.lib.ku.edu/eli/detail/detail?vid=1&sid=13c9e322-2e1c-436c-82f3-
14c0e0737a29%40sessionmgr103&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWxpLWxpdmUmc2NvcGU9c2l0ZQ%3
d%3d#AN=97276427&db=a2h.
Source summary
Harris states that technology cant be taught out of context. It needs to follow the
curriculum and be related to a specific topic the students are working on.
Harris goal is to show that context is necessary and effective for the students to learn.
Teachers new to implementing technology into the classroom.
Harris works in a couple school districts and leads the implementation of new
technology.
Methodology of source
 The school districts are rural and range from 500 students to 1,500. They are all
implementing 1:1 technology for the first time, most use ChromeBooks.
He only works with them the first two years of implementation. There is more time
spent on content rather than professional development.
Findings/conclusions
He says one of the ways to use content with technology is to find quality applications.
They need to be user friendly and still in-depth enough that the students will be able to
understand the material more fully after the lesson.
Harris is the first researcher to focus more on the content of the material rather than the
technology itself. Other researchers thought it was important to use technology only
when it worked well with the material, but he states it and sticks with his point.
Relevance
Harris makes it seem as if a 1:1 approach can be successful as long as its done in the
correct fashion. We should look at the curriculum and ask ourselves how we can use
technology to enhance it rather than shoving material into the already present technology.
He works in relatively small school districts in a rural area. My school is very suburban
and the high schoo itself is 2,000 students. This doesnt make content less important, but
we have a harder time speaking with the professionals about how to implement
technology because they are spread so thinly.