, Volume 60, Issue 5, pp 433–441 | Cite as

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

  • Erica R. HamiltonEmail author
  • Joshua M. Rosenberg
  • Mete Akcaoglu
Original Paper


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.


SAMR Technology integration k-12 technology School technology implementation 


  1. Alonzo, A. C., & Gotwals, A. W. (2012). Learning progressions in science: Current challenges and future directions. New York: Springer Science & Business Media.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R., Airasian, P. W., Cruikshank, K. A., Mayer, R. E., Pintrich, P. R., et al. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives, abridged edition. White Plains: Longman.Google Scholar
  3. Bebell, D., Russell, M., & O’Dwyer, L. (2004). Measuring teachers’ technology uses: why multiple-measures are more revealing. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 37, 45–63. doi: 10.1080/15391523.2004.10782425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Berliner, D. C. (2002). Comment: Educational research: the hardest science of all. Educational Researcher, 31(8), 18–20. doi: 10.3102/0013189x031008018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bloom, B. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives (Vol. 1). New York: McKay.Google Scholar
  6. Branch, R. M., & Merrill, M. D. (2012). Characteristics of instructional design models. In R. A. Reiser & J. V. Dempsey (Eds.), Trends and issues in instructional design and technology (3rd ed., pp. 8–16). Boston: Pearson.Google Scholar
  7. Brubaker, J. (2013). SAMR: Model, metaphor, mistakes. Retrieved from
  8. Design-Based Research Collective. (2003). Design-based research: an emerging paradigm for educational inquiry. Educational Researcher, 32, 5–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Eccles, J. S., & Roeser, R. W. (2011). Schools as developmental contexts during adolescence. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 21, 225–241. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-7795.2010.00725.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ertmer, P. A. (1999). Addressing first-and second-order barriers to change: strategies for technology integration. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47(4), 47–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ertmer, P. A. (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: the final frontier in our quest for technology integration? Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(4), 25–39. doi: 10.1007/bf02504683.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ertmer, P. A., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T., Sadik, O., Sendurur, E., & Sendurur, P. (2012). Teacher beliefs and technology integration practices: a critical relationship. Computers & Education, 59, 423–435. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2012.02.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (1999). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2, 87–105. doi: 10.1016/s1096-7516(00)00016-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hamblen, K. A. (1984). An art criticism questioning strategy within the framework of Bloom’s taxonomy. Studies in Art Education, 26, 41–50. doi: 10.2307/1320799.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hennessey, S., Ruthven, K., & Brindley, S. (2005). Teacher perspectives on integrating ICT into subject teaching: commitment, constraints, caution, and change. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 37(2), 155–192. doi: 10.1080/0022027032000276961.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Higgins, E. L., & Raskind, M. H. (2005). The compensatory effectiveness of the Quicktionary Reading Pen II® on the reading comprehension of students with learning disabilities. Journal of Special Education Technology, 20(1), 31–40.Google Scholar
  17. Hmelo-Silver, C. E., & Azevedo, R. (2006). Understanding complex systems: some core challenges. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15, 53–61. doi: 10.1207/s15327809jls1501_7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hooker, C. (2014). SAMR swimming lessons. Retrieved from
  19. Hughes, J. (2005). The role of teacher knowledge and learning experiences in forming technology-integrated pedagogy. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 13, 277–302.Google Scholar
  20. Inserra, A., & Short, T. (2012). An analysis of high school math, science, social studies, English, and foreign language teachers’ implementation of one-to-one computing and their pedagogical practices. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 41, 145–169. doi: 10.2190/et.41.2.d.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. International Society for Technology in Education. (2015). ISTE standards. Retrieved from
  22. Kelchtermans, G. (2014). Context matters. Teachers and Teaching, 20, 1–3. doi: 10.1080/13540602.2013.848519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2008). Introducing TPCK. In AACTE Committee on Technology and Innovation (Ed.), Handbook of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPCK) for educators (pp. 3–29). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  24. Koehler, M., Mishra, P., Kereluik, K., Shin, T., & Graham, C. R. (2014). The technological pedagogical content knowledge framework. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. Elen, & M. J. Bishop (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp. 101–111). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: an overview. Theory Into Practice, 41, 212–218. doi: 10.1207/s15430421tip4104_2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lei, J., Conway, P. F., & Zhao, Y. (2008). The digital pencil: One-to-one computing for children. Mawhaw: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  27. Ligas, M. R. (2002). Evaluation of broward county alliance of quality schools project. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 7(2), 117–139. doi: 10.1207/S15327671ESPR0702_2.
  28. Linderoth, J. (2013). Open letter to Dr. Ruben Puentedura [Blog post]. Retrieved from
  29. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: a framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mishra, P., Koehler, M. J., & Kereluik, K. (2009). Looking back to the future of educational technology. TechTrends, 53(5), 48–53. doi: 10.1007/s11528-009-0325-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Morrison, G. R., Ross, S. M., Kemp, J. E., & Kalman, H. (2010). Designing effective instruction. Hoboken: Wiley.Google Scholar
  32. Morsink, P. M., Hagerman, M. S., Heintz, A., Boyer, M. D., Harris, R., Kereluik, K., et al. (2011). Professional development to support TPACK technology integration: the initial learning trajectories of thirteen fifth and sixth grade educators. Journal of Education, 191(2), 1–18.Google Scholar
  33. Mueller, P. A., & Oppenheimer, D. M. (2014). The pen is mightier than the keyboard: advantages of longhand over laptop note taking. Psychological Science, 25, 1159–1168. doi: 10.1177/0956797614524581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Opfer, V. D., & Pedder, D. (2011). Conceptualizing teacher professional learning. Review of Educational Research, 81(3), 376–407. doi: 10.3102/0034654311413609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Pearson, P. D., Ferdig, R. E., Blomeyer, R. L., Jr., & Moran, J. (2005). The effects of technology on reading performance in the middle-school grades: A meta-analysis with recommendations for policy. Naperville: Learning Point Associates.Google Scholar
  36. Pepe, C. [Device Smashing Diva]. (2014). SAMR Wheel of Fortune [Video file]. Retrieved from
  37. Porras-Hernández, L. H., & Salinas-Amescua, B. (2013). Strengthening TPACK: a broader notion of context and the use of teacher’s narratives to reveal knowledge construction. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 48, 223–244. doi: 10.2190/ec.48.2.f.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Puentedura, R. (2006). Transformation, technology, and education [Blog post]. Retrieved from
  39. Puentedura, R. (2014a). Building transformation: An introduction to the SAMR model [Blog post]. Retrieved from
  40. Puentedura, R. (2014b). Learning, technology, and the SAMR model: Goals, processes, and practice [Blog post]. Retrieved from
  41. Reiser, R. A. (2012). What field did you say you were in? Defining and naming our field. In R. A. Reiser & J. V. Dempsey (Eds.), Trends and issues in instructional design and technology (3rd ed., pp. 1–7). Boston: Pearson.Google Scholar
  42. Reiser, R. A., & Dempsey, J. V. (2012). Trends and issues in instructional design and technology (3rd ed.). Boston: Pearson.Google Scholar
  43. Rosenberg, J. M., & Koehler, M. J. (2015). Context and teaching with technology in the digital age. In M. L. Niess & H. Gillow-Wiles (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education in the digital age (pp. 440–465). Hershey: IGI Global.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Russell, J. D., Sorge, D., & Brickner, D. (1994). Improving technology implementation in grades5-12 with the ASSURE model. The Journal (Technological Horizons In Education), 21(9), 66–70. Retrieved from Scholar
  45. Salomon, G., & Perkins, D. (2005). Do technologies make us smarter? Intellectual amplification with, of, and through technology. In R. J. Sternberg & D. D. Preiss (Eds.), Intelligence and technology: The impact of tools on the nature and development of human abilities (pp. 69–86). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  46. Salomon, G., Globerson, T., & Guterman, E. (1989). The computer as a zone of proximal development: internalizing reading-related metacognitions from a Reading Partner. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81(4), 620–627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Sherin, M., & van Es, E. (2005). Using video to support teachers’ ability to notice classroom interactions. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 13, 475–491.Google Scholar
  48. Tabak, I. (2013). Lights, camera, learn: When the set is as important as the actors. In R. Luckin, S. Puntambekar, P. Goodyear, B. L. Grabowski, J. Underwood, & N. Winters (Eds.), Handbook of design in educational technology (pp. 397–405). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  49. Urdan, T. (1999). The role of context. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing.Google Scholar
  50. Wang, F., & Hannafin, M. J. (2005). Design-based research and technology-enhanced learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(4), 5–23. doi: 10.1007/bf02504682.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Windschitl, M., & Sahl, K. (2002). Tracing teachers’ use of technology in a laptop computer school: the interplay of teacher beliefs, social dynamics, and institutional culture. American Educational Research Journal, 39, 165–205. doi: 10.3102/00028312039001165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Xin, J. F., & Rieth, H. (2001). Video-assisted vocabulary instruction for elementary school students with learning disabilities. Information Technology in Childhood Education Annual, 1, 87–104.Google Scholar
  53. Zhao, Y., & Frank, K. A. (2003). Factors affecting technology uses in schools: an ecological perspective. American Educational Research Journal, 40, 807–840. doi: 10.3102/00028312040004807.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Educational Communications & Technology 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Erica R. Hamilton
    • 1
    Email author
  • Joshua M. Rosenberg
    • 2
  • Mete Akcaoglu
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Leadership and Learning, College of EducationGrand Valley State UniversityGrand RapidsUSA
  2. 2.Department of Counseling, Educational Psychology, and Special EducationMichigan State UniversityEast LansingUSA
  3. 3.Department of Leadership, Technology, and Human Development, College of EducationGeorgia Southern UniversityStatesboroUSA

Personalised recommendations