Does the SAMR model privilege the technology-enhanced classroom?

The SAMR model was developed by Dr. Ruben Puentedura, it proposes a four-stage model of technology-enhanced teaching. The four stages are; Substitution where technology directly substitutes for existing practice, Augmentation... [ view full abstract ]

The SAMR model was developed by Dr. Ruben Puentedura, it proposes a four-stage model of technology-enhanced teaching. The four stages are; Substitution where technology directly substitutes for existing practice, Augmentation where technology substitutes and augments practice, Modification where technology allows for significant task redesign, and Redefinition where technology allows for the creation of new tasks. Puentedura estimates that a full-time teacher might need at least three years of experience with ICTs to move from tasks which simply involve Substitution to tasks which involve some Redefinition.

Some researchers have criticised the SAMR model as it does not appear to have been documented in peer-review literature. Other researchers mention a lack of clarity of the meaning of the stages (thus making it difficult to evaluate), particularly the middle two stages, and propose the more effective RATL model. Nonetheless SAMR has been used fairly widely in teacher professional development where one of its strengths is in encouraging teachers to reflect on the extent to which their use of technology is transforming their pedagogical approaches, although researchers have noted the subjective nature of the SAMR model.

A useful comparison to show the shortcomings of the SAMR model is to contrast it with Moule's eLearning model (2007). Moule's model sees the integration of technology into teaching as a means of changing the type of teaching practice, moving from an Instructivist to a Constructivist model. In contrast SAMR seems to see the integration of technology as an end unto itself. Its focus on the technology as the key driver within the process seems to privilege technology as paramount in teaching, and suggests that it would be possible to create previously "inconceivable" tasks with SAMR. Many researchers feel that teaching should be governed by the learning objectives of the programme of study (which have already been conceived are therefore “conceivable”), and even if technologies present opportunities that would have been hitherto impossible to achieve (or had been "inconceivable"), these opportunities should not be taken unless they adhere to the learning objectives of the programme.