Swimming in the Pool of SAMR

Technology is a bit like a modern children’s playground.  It has multiple entry points, different levels of risk and safety, and can offer something to nearly everyone who comes across it, depending on what they’re ready for.  The popular SAMR Framework (Substitution, Augmentation, Modification, Redefinition) for evaluating technology use in lessons is similar to that.  It doesn’t require educators to explore technology to a certain level of complexity for “success,” it simply categorizes how deeply one goes and how it might look if s/he made it more or less “techy.” As I read about SAMR, I immediately thought of something I am more familiar with in the world of education in Webb’s Depth of Knowledge (DOK).  DOK levels are broken down similarly to SAMR where degrees of rigor and complexity ramp up as you work your way up the levels, but level 4 isn't necessarily better than level 1.  

Then, I watched Jacyln Stevens swimming pool analogy comparing SAMR to a swimming pool with a shallow end and a deep end, and it’s actually useful to swim back and forth between the ends. I smiled as I have made the exact same analogy with DOK levels in my building.  It makes total sense. In SAMR terms, “redefinition” isn’t better or worse than “substitution.” It depends on a myriad of factors including: lesson content, lesson goal, student makeup, teacher comfortability, etc.  With my knowledge level of tech frameworks in the classroom being fairly novice, evaluating myself and digging into the most commonly used framework in SAMR seems to make the most sense. 

Image Source: Jacyln Stevens

As I reflected on my own practice, I appreciated Lynn Erickson’s piece on her blog Mimio Educator with the different examples of what lessons may look like across the spectrum of SAMR.  It helped me pinpoint certain assignments and consider which direction I would take them. 

Image Source: Mimio Educator

I landed on the fact that I often tried and continue to try to push myself toward the modification and redefinition end of the framework, and this solely came from the fact that when I started teaching, one of the first things I noticed was how much more student engagement came with the incorporation of technology.  The more I could immerse them in tech during the assignment, the more they seemed to like it.  I think back to assignments like our exploration of the immigration process where instead of creating a paper flow chart, or even a flow chart using something like Popplet of the steps of the naturalization process, students created a website that helped guide prospective citizens through step by step. This lands me more in the “deep end” of the pool of Redefinition.  

Image Source: Popplet

However, as I gained experience in the classroom, I found myself finding more of a balance of traditional tasks and offering more “shallow end” options that work their way across the “pool.”  Instead of creating an assignment that asked students to create a blog post that asked them to use their vocabulary words within the post, I would ask them to “climb the ladder.” First, use paper and pencil to create flashcards because I believe in the research of hand to mind retention.  Then, use Quizlet to review flashcards and play games to help memorize the definitions.  Finally, we might assess using an application strategy like the blog post.  

In terms of evaluating my current self, I tend to lean towards more of the modification and redefinition of assignments. This is still based on the reasoning that it is more natural and appeals to this generation more.  Tech is an every day, every hour aspect of their lives.  They engage with it seamlessly and their learning curve is usually quick.  That being said, in my new role of Instructional Coach, I’m much more open to a balanced approach.  

As I now support teachers with instruction, with technology integration being an aspect of the role, I find myself taking more of a flexible approach.  For teachers who are more comfortable with technology, I’ll offer ideas for lesson design that incorporate more holistic and multimodal choices to students to demonstrate their learning through multimodal presentations like Padlet, Google Slides, and PearDeck.  For those that are more comfortable with traditional analog tasks, I’ll see if they might feel comfortable with simple tweaks for added technology.  For example, instead of partners filling out a graphic organizer, let’s have them share a Google Doc and digitally collaborate.  

One thing I’m still curious about is where open ended, student choice assignments fall in the framework.  Often, I would give the students an option of 4-5 different software tools to create a project or presentation with choice involved.  I didn’t necessarily design the assignment with a certain level of SAMR in mind, but the level in which students use the technology somewhat determines the stage of the framework I’m in.  So, it seems it could be slightly different with each student. 

Regardless of which end of the framework I’m in, or any teacher for that matter, reflecting on a framework like SAMR helps us continue to consider what level of technology integration is appropriate for a certain learning goal based on who’s doing the learning, who’s doing the teaching and what the end goal for student learning actually is.  Although technology may sometimes be more engaging, we must take into account what will be most effective for the end goal of student learning.