I’ve been seeing more and more references to SAMR. Maybe it’s because ISTE is starting, or maybe it’s because my district is promoting it as a tool for teachers embarking on our Digital Learning Initiative (1:1 devices), or maybe its just the Baader-Meinhof phenomenon. Regardless, I can only tolerate so many SAMR infographics before I’m pushed over the edge, and I have to say something.
Due to its overemphasis on technology, SAMR is the least helpful model to promote with teachers if you want to provide a resource to positively impact student learning.
Depending on the teacher, it confuses, at best, and misleads, at worse. I’m not alone in this sentiment. Several of my colleagues both local and online have expressed similar feelings. Most eloquent are a couple of posts by Casey Rutherford. My favorite quote:
On the note of lesson design, I am not satisfied with simplifying the complexities of teaching to where it falls on the SAMR scale. Teaching is nuanced, fluid, and has a ton of moving parts, and we’d be better off embracing that than cheapening it with a stamp of ‘modification.’
I’ll illustrate the problem with a couple of lessons.
Embracing the “Flipped Classroom,” the teacher records and shares a demonstration of the projectile motion lab and an overview of the lab procedure. Students can watch the video for homework before coming to class. In addition to the video, the lab procedure is published to Canvas and each student can follow the procedure on their devices while performing the lab. The video (and published procedure) instructs students on how to setup the apparatus and make the necessary measurements of the path of the ball bearing that is launched after rolling down the ramp. The data is captured in a Google doc and plotted using Plotly, allowing group members to share data with each other. Based on their plot, students determine where on the floor to place the target and then the teacher observes their attempt. Points are awarded based on how close the ball bearing lands to the target. Each student creates a video that captures their attempt in which they report their percent error and list potential sources of error. The videos are posted on their public blog. Students, and the public, can comment on these videos posted on the students’ blog, but no one does.
Let’s take a look at this lesson. Hmmm. Flipped classroom, LMS, Google Docs, Plotly, video creation, student blogs. Woohoo! We are swimming in the deep end of the SAMR pool! Modification? Redefinition? Doesn’t matter, we’re above the bar!
There’s just one problem. This lesson sucks. I know, it’s based on one of my actual lessons. My class did it. They weren’t engaged; they didn’t have ownership; they didn’t have choice; they didn’t exercise their creativity. They asked me a ton of questions about the details of the procedure. From a pedagogical perspective, it is flawed. It is a traditional cookbook science lab jazzed up with a bunch of tech.
Don’t worry, I made improvements the next year. I focused on research-based pedagogy, and I integrated technology where it supported the pedagogy and content.
Students are presented with a challenge: Given a fixed vertical elevation of the projectile launcher (i.e., “cannon”), determine the launch angle and time of launch to hit the toy buggy at a specific location as it “flees” . Students work in small groups to justify the selection of the kind of data needed, design a plan for collecting data, and collect data. They choose the tools with which to collect the data. Some groups use video cameras; others, motion detectors; others, photo gates; others, meter sticks; others, phones. They create a computational model using 3D physics programming language since a traditional mathematical solution is beyond most of their current capabilities (one group solves the problem algebraically using clever trig substitutions, which is fine). Using the computational model they solve for the launch angle and time of launch. Their attempt based on their calculation is recorded with a high speed video camera and shared publicly to celebrate their success. Students reflect on the lab practicum with a specific focus on measurement uncertainty and capture their reflections in their electronic portfolio which they will export into an open format (HTML) and take with them to university. During the post lab discussion as a whole class, each group shares what in their evaluation is the most significant aspects of their approach as each group had a unique approach to the lab. Groups compare and contrast these techniques arriving at a set of best practices for minimizing measurement uncertainty.
Students were motivated and engaged. They were creative and collaborative. They asked each other many questions. They surprised me with their solutions. They focused on deeper science practices beyond the content of projectile motion. Some groups incorporated technology to help them meet the challenge. Some groups hardly used any technology at all.
Some may rebuke my assertion and claim that I’m oversimplifying SAMR and there is more to it than what I’m presenting. I’m missing the student-centered vs. teacher-centered aspect. Maybe there is, but you wouldn’t know it from most of the resources out there. SAMR Coffee? SAMR Apps? Really?
Some may argue that teachers new to tech need a simple model to reference. Yes, SAMR is simple. But, why promote it when there are better and more inclusive models available? Do we really think TPACK is too complex for our colleagues? Are we selling them that short?