Assignment One – EML515 – Into Multimodality

By Kara Lewis (11585002)

Into Multimodality: Technology integration in the ESL classroom

Source: http://www.supportingeducation.org/2013/05/20/technology-in-the-classroom-help-or-hindrance/

The Purpose of my presentation and this document:

This word document compliments my Prezi presentation which has been designed to

introduce a technology integration model, SAMR (or Substitution, Augmentation,

Modification and Redefinition), to my fellow ESL teachers during our departmental

workshops. These documents cover an outline of what SAMR is and how it might (or

might not) be useful in achieving our goals in the ESL classroom. The hope is that by

understanding this model the teachers at our school will be able to make better

choices when integrating new technologies into our classrooms. The presentation

hopes to introduce and analyse the SAMR model in order to generate further

discussion.

Introduction:

Regardless of wether you are an objectivist who thinks learning takes place through

directed teaching methods or a constructivist who believes learning happens best

through enquiry (Doering and Roblyer, 2013), understanding how, when, why and

where to implement digital technology is an important facet of 21st century teaching.

1

Assignment One – EML515 – Into Multimodality

By Kara Lewis (11585002)

Different schools of thought have different ideas on how technology can best be

used to enhance education (Doering and Roblyer, 2013). As competent teachers,

most of us at this school have a good understanding of what these different theories

are and I invite you to reflect on your own teaching philosophies and keep these in

mind as we propose ideas on the integration of digital technologies into our

curriculum and classrooms. This presentation does not aim to propose a set of

ideals, or to prescribe to a particular theory. Instead, this presentation aims to

introduce a model, SAMR, that can guide and assist us when making decisions about

the effectiveness of the tools we chose to integrated into the classroom regardless of

our theoretical origins.

ESL teaching and learning can benefit greatly from good technology integration

(Dillenbourg, Jarvela, and Fischer, 2009) and why should our school be any different?

Perhaps in the past we have shied away from introducing digital technology into our

classrooms because we lack a clear framework that assists us in implementing our

ideas effectively. This is why I am presenting on the SAMR model to you today. We

will look at this model in relation to our current teaching context and goals with the

purpose of generating discussion regarding the model’s effectiveness.

An introduction to the SAMR model of technology integration:

The SAMR model (or Substitution, Augmentation, Modification and Redefinition

model) was first developed by Ruben Puentedura in collaboration with the Maine

Department of Education as part of their learning technology initiative (Puentedura,

2006). The model was designed to provide a clear framework for how technology

use can impact teaching and learning and evaluate that (Romwell, Kidder, and Wood,

2014, p1). It is a four-level, hierarchical model that aims to help educators and

instructional designers in providing optimal learning experiences when using

technology in education. SAMR also promotes that teachers can ‘move up’ from

lower to higher levels of teaching with the use of technology and this, according to

2

Assignment One – EML515 – Into Multimodality

By Kara Lewis (11585002)

Puentedura, leads to enhanced teaching and learning experiences (Puentedura,

2013).

Before we look at SAMR in more depth, keep in mind that this is not the only model

available when considering technology integration in the ESL classroom. The TPACK

(Technology, Pedagogical and Content Knowledge) model also provides a useful

framework to understand and describe the kinds of knowledge needed for effective

pedagogical practice in a technology enhanced learning environment (Howell, 2012,

p.30; Doering & Robler, 2013). The TPACK model focuses on the interrelationship

between three components, technology, pedagogy and content. When

competencies in these three areas meet, we find the optimal level of technology

integration. Figure 1 below illustrates this with a venn diagram where the optimal

technology integration happens at the intersection of the three circles.

Figure 1

Source: http://www.coetail.com/dimanishi/tag/creative/

As I have been asked to present on the SAMR model today we will not be looking

more deeply into TPACK or any other theories regarding technology integration but

this does not mean that they are ineffective tools (Tucker, 2013). In fact, both the

TPACK and the SAMR models have their strengths and their weaknesses.

The SAMR model has generated a lot of attention and it has many advocates (Tucker,

2013; Schrock, 2013; Romwell et al, 2014, Puentedura, 2006, 2013). A simple Google

3

Assignment One – EML515 – Into Multimodality

By Kara Lewis (11585002)

search will generate a lot of articles on the topic. It is clear, concise, easy to measure,

and provides guidelines that teachers can use to evaluate the different stages of

technology integration (Tucker, 2013). Let’s look at this model in more depth.

The four levels of SAMR:

I mentioned above that SAMR is a four-level conceptual framework. First, lets look at

each stage of the model individually before examining the model as a whole. Figure

2 below provide a visual representation of the SAMR model. It shows the hierarchical

ladder of desired technology integration based on these four stages.

Figure 2:

(Source: https://designingoutcomes.com/the-padagogy-wheel-v2-0-its-all-about-transformation-and-integration/)

Level 1- Substitution Level

At this level digital technology replaces ‘analog’ technology but this replacement

does not result in any functional change. An example of this might be having

students write an essay using a word processer instead of writing the essay by hand

or, keeping our own goals in mind, this might mean getting students to complete

digitalised versions of already available practise tests for the standardised English

language test instead of having student answer these questions with a pen and

4

Assignment One – EML515 – Into Multimodality

By Kara Lewis (11585002)

paper. At this stage of the model it is important to ask the question: What will I gain

by replacing the older technology with the new technology? (Oxnevad, 2013).

Level 2- Augmentation Level

At this level digital technology is adopted in a functional way that augments or

enhances the learning task in some way. For example, we might have students

perform digitalised versions of the practise tests as above but in addition to this the

program records their answers then analyses the data to show students which areas

they need to improve and then provides them with sample questions in that area of

study, lets say, reading comprehension, for example. Here we have enhanced, or

augmented, the learning experience, as students are now able to focus on the

aspects of the test that they need to improve most. At this stage of the model it is

important to ask the questions: Have I added an improvement to the task process

that could not be accomplished with the older technology at a fundamental level?

How does this feature contribute to my design? (Oxnevad, 2013).

Level 3- Modification level

At this level digital technology significantly redesigns a learning task. An example

here might be that students create a blog or website using multimedia materials (e.g

text, images, videos, diagrams, charts etc.) to showcase their learning. In this

example students are using and practising the four macro skills that are assessed on

the standardised English test in a completely new way. At this stage of the model we

need to ask ourselves the questions; how is the original task being modified? Does

this modification fundamentally depend upon the new technology? How does this

modification contribute to my design? (Oxnevad, 2013).

4- Redefinition

At this level technology is used in a transformative way to create new learning tasks

that would not otherwise have been created. For example, students may use Skype

to connect with a teacher or students from another part of the world or hold live

discussions with other students from overseas. This is a way of engaging in English as

5

Assignment One – EML515 – Into Multimodality

By Kara Lewis (11585002)

a second language that would not be possible without the use of digital technology.

Here we can ask ourselves the questions, What is the new task? Will any portion of

the original task be retained? How is the new task uniquely made possible by the

new technology? How does it contribute to my design? (Oxnevad, 2013).

The SAMR model as a whole:

According to Puentedura, the higher the level of an activity the greater the

educational benefit (2006). Teachers in the substitution and augmentation phase can

use technology to accomplish traditional tasks, but in Puentedura’s view, the real

learning advances come from engaging students in learning experiences that could

not otherwise be accomplished without technology (Puentedura, 2006). As one

moves up the ladder, computer technology becomes more important in the

classroom and at the same time the technology becomes more invisibly woven into

the demands of good teaching and learning which encourages educators to

significantly enhance educational experiences (Romrell, 2014, p4).

If we, as ESL teachers at this school, look at this model in relation to our current

goals, which are two fold, we first would look at integrating technology at the

substitution level then at the augmentation level. This progression might very well

help us in achieving better test results on the standardised English tests as we desire

but, according to this model, if we want to really engage our students and transform

the way they learn we need to look at implementing activities that sit at the

modification or redefinition stage of the ladder. In my view this is something we

should strive for as a department and as a school and I hope that, in time, we see

start to see a shift in the current traditional teaching paradigm. Of course, this

transition takes time and it will also take some trial and error as we find ways in

which to engage our students effectively. In this way the SAMR model could be a

very useful tool for helping us on this journey towards redefining teaching and

learning with technology. That said, SAMR is not a fool proof model and an analysis

of the framework needs to be made.

6

Assignment One – EML515 – Into Multimodality

By Kara Lewis (11585002)

Critical Analysis of SAMR:

According to Oxnevad, the SAMR model ‘truly covers the entire spectrum of tech

integration’ (2013). While it is true that many teachers find it a useful guide (Tucker,

2013, Schrock, 2013, Romwell et al, 2014) this model it is not without its flaws. Lee

(2014) even goes so far to argue that this model can be detrimental to rather than

enhance learning experiences. Hamilton et al (2016) have best summarised the

pitfalls of this model by putting them into three categories. The first is that the

model includes ‘no accommodation for context’, the second being that ‘the rigid

hierarchical structure dismisses the complexity of teaching with technology’ and

thirdly, that ‘the model focuses on product over process’ (Hamilton et al, 2016,

p.436 - 438). In this sense the SAMR model may ‘underemphasise the multi-faceted

and complex nature of teaching with technology’ (Hamilton et al, 2016, p.439).

Moroder (2013) also points out that it is more effective to focus on good teaching

practices rather than the technology itself as the SAMR model has been accused of

doing (Hamilton et al, 2016, p.438). I personally really like Moroder’s redefined

analysis of the technology integration model (see Figure 3 below) where she

proposes that it is more effective to have the primary focus on teaching practices

then look at where digital technologies can be integrated to enhance these

objectives rather than the objective themselves (Moroder, 2013) (see Figure 3

below).

As mentioned, Hamilton et al (2016) also criticise the models hierarchical structure.

Callington (2013) has tried to combat this by changing the way we look at the SAMR

model (Dunn, 2013). In figure 4, below, we can see the SAMR represented on a

wheel with the four stages shown in the outer layer of the wheel and the different

tools, activities, and processes presented as we move in towards the centre of the

wheel. This representation of the SAMR model can be more useful than the linear

model as show in in figure 1. However, the confusing way in which the SAMR model

7

Assignment One – EML515 – Into Multimodality

By Kara Lewis (11585002)

is represented or interpreted in different ways by different people can also be seen

as another criticism (Hamilton et al, 2016).

Figure 3:

Source: http://www.edtechcoaching.org/2013/11/ed-tech-frameworks-why-i-dont-use-tpack.html

Figure 4:

8

Assignment One – EML515 – Into Multimodality

By Kara Lewis (11585002)

Conclusion :

The key to successful digital technology integration is the efficient use of digital tools

that are appropriate for the task. The practices we chose and the types of technology

we decide to integrate might differ depending on our philosophical tendencies

towards certain leaning theories or certain desired outcomes. When thinking about

the ways in which we can implement technology into our classrooms, the SAMR

model is a useful framework which we can use to analyse how our technology

choices are affecting learning environments and how effective the technology might

be in enhancing learning experiences or achieving our educational goals. In this

regard, the SAMR model is useful for ESL (and other) teachers at our school as we

move into the digital technology space. However, the SAMR model does have flaws

and a deeper consideration also need to be made in order to create the best

practices and effectively achieve our educational goals through the use of

technology.

9

Assignment One – EML515 – Into Multimodality

By Kara Lewis (11585002)

References:

Branham, Mary. (2012). Bringing Technology into the Classroom is a Process, Not an

Event. Capitol Ideas, 55(5), 28-29.

Doering, A. & Roblyer, M. (2013). Theory into Practice: Foundations for Effective

Technology Integration. In Integrating Educational Technology into Teaching (6 ed.,

pp. 32-71). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Dillenbourg, P., Jarvela, S., & Fischer, F. (2009). Technology-Enhanced Learning. In N.

Balacheff, S. Ludvigsen, T. De Jong, A. Lazonder & S.-A. Barnes (Eds.), Technoloy-

Enhanced Learning (pp. 3-19). Dordrecht: Springer. Retrieved

from http://csuau.eblib.com.ezproxy.csu.edu.au/patron/Read.aspx?

p=428751&pg=25.

Dunn, J. (2013). New Padagogy Wheel Helps You Integrate Technology Using SAMR

Model. Retrieved from http://www.edudemic.com/new-padagogy-wheel-helps-you-

integrate-technology-using-samr-model/

Hamilton, R., Rosenberg, M. & Akcaoglu, M. (2016). The Substitution augmentation

modification redefinition(SAMR) model: A critical review and suggestions for its Use.

Tech Trends, Vol. 60, p.433-441.

Howell, J. (2012). What is a digital pedagogy and why do we need one? Teaching

with ICT: Digital pedagogies for collaboration and creativity (pp. 3-17). South

Melbourne, Victoria: Oxford University Press.

Howell, J. (2012). Theoretical Underpinnings. Teaching with ICT: Digital pedagogies

for collaboration and creativity (pp. 19-36). South Melbourne, Victoria: Oxford

University Press.

10

Assignment One – EML515 – Into Multimodality

By Kara Lewis (11585002)

Kharbach, M. (2011-2014). Educational Technology and Mobile Learning: SMARL

Model. Retrieved February 13, 2014,

fromhttp://www.educatorstechnology.com/search/label/Samrl%20model

Lee, R. (2014) The problem with SAMR. Article retrieved from: http://royanlee.com/?

p=3375

Moroder (2013) Why I don’t use TPACK. Article retrieved from:

http://www.edtechcoaching.org/2013/11/ed-tech-frameworks-why-i-dont-use-

tpack.html

Oxnevad, S. (2013). Using SAMR to Teach Above the Line. Getting Smart. Article

retrieved from: http://gettingsmart.com/2013/07/using-samr-to-teach-above-the-

line/

Puentedura, R. (2006). Transformation, technology, and education [Blog post].

Retrieved from http://hippasus.com/resources/tte/

Puentedura, R. R. (2013, 25 October). The SAMR Ladder: Questions and Transitions.

Retrieved from:

http://www.hippasus.com/rrpweblog/archives/2013/10/26/SAMRLadder_Questions

.pdf

Romrell, D., Kidder, L. C., & Wood, E. (2014). The SAMR Model as a Framework for

Evaluating mLearning. Journal Of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 18(2), 79-93.

Shrock, K., (2013) Resources to support the SAMR Model Retrieved from: http://schrockguide.net/samr.html

11

Assignment One – EML515 – Into Multimodality

By Kara Lewis (11585002)

Tucker, C. (2013) Beyond the teachers journey to technology integration. Article

retrieved from: http://catlintucker.com/2013/10/beyond-samr-the-teachers-

journey-to-technology-integration/

12