The Substitution Augmentation Modification Redefinition (SAMR) Model: a Critical Review and Suggestions for its Use

被引：185

作者：

Hamilton E.R. ^{[1
]}

Rosenberg J.M. ^{[2
]}

Akcaoglu M. ^{[3
]}

机构：

[1] Department of Leadership and Learning, College of Education, Grand Valley State University, 476C DeVos, 401 Fulton W., Grand Rapids, 49504, MI

[2] Department of Counseling, Educational Psychology, and Special Education, Michigan State University, 620 Farm Lane, Room 447, East Lansing, 48824, MI

[3] Department of Leadership, Technology, and Human Development, College of Education, Georgia Southern University, Statesboro, 30458, GA

来源：

TechTrends | 2016年 / 60卷 / 5期

关键词：

k-12; technology; SAMR; School technology implementation; Technology integration;

D O I：

10.1007/s11528-016-0091-y

中图分类号：

学科分类号：

摘要：

The Substitution, Augmentation, Modification, and Redefinition (SAMR) model is a four-level, taxonomy-based approach for selecting, using, and evaluating technology in K-12 settings (Puentedura 2006). Despite its increasing popularity among practitioners, the SAMR model is not currently represented in the extant literature. To focus the ongoing conversation regarding K-12 educators’ understanding and implementation of technology, we provide a critical review of the SAMR model using theory and prior research. We focus on the absence of context, its hierarchical structure, and the emphasis placed on product over process and conclude with suggestions to guide educators’ and researchers’ technology integration efforts. © 2016, Association for Educational Communications & Technology.

引用

页码：433 / 441

页数：8

共 53 条

[1]

Alonzo A.C., Gotwals A.W., Learning progressions in science: Current challenges and future directions, (2012)

[2]

Anderson L.W., Krathwohl D.R., Airasian P.W., Cruikshank K.A., Mayer R.E., Pintrich P.R., Et al., A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives, abridged edition, (2001)

[3]

Bebell D., Russell M., O'Dwyer L., Measuring teachers’ technology uses: why multiple-measures are more revealing, Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 37, pp. 45-63, (2004)

[4]

Berliner D.C., Comment: Educational research: the hardest science of all, Educational Researcher, 31, 8, pp. 18-20, (2002)

[5]

Bloom B., Taxonomy of educational objectives, (1956)

[6]

Branch R.M., Merrill M.D., Characteristics of instructional design models, Trends and issues in instructional design and technology, pp. 8-16, (2012)

[7]

Brubaker J., SAMR, (2013)

[8]

Design-Based Research Collective, Design-based research: an emerging paradigm for educational inquiry, Educational Researcher, 32, pp. 5-8, (2003)

[9]

Eccles J.S., Roeser R.W., Schools as developmental contexts during adolescence, Journal of Research on Adolescence, 21, pp. 225-241, (2011)

[10]

Ertmer P.A., Addressing first-and second-order barriers to change: strategies for technology integration, Educational Technology Research and Development, 47, 4, pp. 47-61, (1999)

← 1 2 3 4 5 6 →