Think of the difference between seasoning an old family recipe (Enhancement) and creating an entirely new, original dish (Transformation). Susan Oxnevad referred to this movement across the spectrum as "teaching above the line."

Substitution

At this stage, technology is directly substituted for a more traditional one. It is a simple, bare-bones, direct replacement. For example, if you are teaching a government lesson on the Constitution, you might use an electronic or web-based version of the document instead of a hard copy. Students might also answer questions about the Constitution using a Microsoft Word instead of filling out a worksheet.

Substitution might also include a student using Keynote, PowerPoint, Prezi, Slides, or a similar program to present information about an article or amendment to the class.

In this step, you ask yourself what we stand to gain by replacing traditional tools with technology. Invariably, some situations will be better served with pen and paper.

Augmentation

The technology is again directly substituted for a traditional one, but with significant enhancements to the student experience. In other words, you ask yourself if the technology increases or augments a student's productivity and potential in some way.

Returning to the Constitution example, a student might augment a presentation on, say, the 14th Amendment with a video clip of how equal protection under the law was enforced during school desegregation. It could also include interactive links to relevant supreme court decisions, such as Plessy v. Ferguson or Brown v. Topeka Board of Education.

Modification

In this stage, you are beginning to move from enhancement to transformation on the model. Instead of replacement or enhancement, this is an actual change to the design of the lesson and its learning outcome. The key question here—does the technology significantly alter the task?

A student presenting research on the 14th Amendment, to continue our example, might create his or her own unique graphic organizer for the class that not only includes the usual multimedia resources but represents a new product or synthesis of existing material. As another example, a group of students might collaborate in a cloud-based workspace to propose a modern definition of equal protection under the law and solicit feedback on their proposals from classmates.

Redefinition

The last stage of the SAMR model is Redefinition and represents the pinnacle of how technology can transform a student’s experience. In this case, you ask yourself if the technology tools allow educators to redefine a traditional task in a way that would not be possible without the tech, creating a novel experience.

For example, after completing their group work and soliciting feedback from classmates (both tasks that could be completed "offline" although arguably not with the same experience as in the modified format), students could utilize technology to network with students several states away to see how regional differences impact how others think about the Constitution.

Taking it a step further, students could even interact in real time with citizens in another country to examine key differences in constitutional philosophy and law. This can bridge the gap between K-12 and higher education as it did in this digital citizenship project.


Modeling SAMR Outside the Classroom

When you hear the acronym SAMR, it's mostly in the context of the classroom. But SAMR is a useful framework for integrating technology beyond the classroom as well. In fact, thoughtfully using the framework in faculty meetings, observations, and other everyday activities can increase their effectiveness and model SAMR best practices for participants.

Many teachers new to integrating technology into their classroom come to me with the question, “I am really excited to use technology in the classroom, how can I do it?” Well, this in itself, is pretty general question so I usually respond, “tell me about what you are doing in your classroom”

There is no point in using technology for the sake of using technology. That would be equivalent to getting out a hammer and simply banging away at nails without a clear goal.   It must be used purposely and through an authentic context. In other words, start with the end in mind. What are the specific learning goals you would like students to reach? With this in mind, we can then think about selecting the appropriate tool.

The TPAC model is a nice way to combine content, pedagogy and technology. Here’s a great video that summarizes it:

They based their initial idea on Lee S. Shulman’s 1986 work “Those Who Understand: Knowledge Growth in Teaching.” First, Shulman discusses the usual idea of knowledge in teaching which is that teachers have a set of content knowledge – specific knowledge about the subject they are teaching – and a set of pedagogical knowledge – knowledge about how to teach including specific teaching methods. Shulman counters this and says that effective teachers overlap these two knowledge sets, making a set of knowledge about how to effectively teach their subject matter. He calls this pedagogical content knowledge or PCK.

Twenty years later, Mishra and Koehler saw that the biggest change happening in education is the use of technology in the classroom. They noticed that technological knowledge was treated as a set of knowledge outside of and unconnected to PCK.

After five years of research, Mishra and Koehler created a new framework, TPACK, which adds technology to pedagogical content knowledge and emphasizes the connections, interactions, and constraints that teachers work with in all three of these knowledge areas.

 

TPACK gives us three knowledge areas to consider: Technology, Pedagogy, and Content Knowledge. Arranging these three categories into a Venn diagram helps us to see the four areas that are created in Mishra and Koehler’s framework.

First we have Shulman’s overlap: Pedagogical Content Knowledge. This overlap reminds us that, as teachers, we design lessons based on how students can best learn our specific course material. Another researcher, Rick Marks, said in 1990 that PCK “represents a class of knowledge that is central to teachers’ work and that would not typically be held by non-teaching subject matter experts or by teachers who know little of that subject.” As teachers, we know PCK is required to simplify a subject and teach it effectively.

The second overlap area created is Technological Content Knowledge. TCK is how the technology influences the content. For an example, teachers used to teach penmanship and cursive to their students. But many school districts have eliminated cursive handwriting from the curriculum. Without entering into the debate on the merits of cursive, it is clear that technology has impacted the content knowledge that we teach students.

The third overlap area created by our Venn diagram is Technological Pedagogical Knowledge. TPK highlights the area where technology and pedagogy influence each other. Incorporating technology into the classroom often causes a change in how the material is taught. A simple example might be when a teacher uses an instructional video clip for a topic that they used to model on the board.

Finally, in the center of our Venn diagram, we get Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge. This area acknowledges that all three of these sets of knowledge are influencing each other, that each is important, and that to have an effective learning environment, we need to consider all three. Mishra and Koehler paraphrase Marks’ comment about PCK to apply the idea to TPACK, “TPACK represents a class of knowledge that is central to teachers’ work with technology. This knowledge would not typically be held by technologically proficient subject matter experts, or by technologists who know little of the subject or of pedagogy, or by teachers who know little of that subject or about technology.”

In addition to these new knowledge overlap areas, Mishra and Koehler are quick to point out that all of this knowledge lies in specific contexts. You as the teacher form part of the context, while your students and the environment also contribute to the context. With each situation, the context changes slightly and your set of knowledge shifts with it to create the learning environment.

 

Currently, technology is treated as if it is separate from teaching and learning. We have Professional Development workshops where we are instructed in the use of some particular software or app, and how to fit it into our classroom is not discussed. Mishra and Koehler point to this as a current negative impact. They claim that the lack of awareness of TPACK keeps technology separated and leads to four problems with using technology in the classroom.

First, there are such rapid changes in technology that it is extremely difficult to keep up with all the latest advancements and apps. The second problem is that software is designed for business, not for education. This often means that students are learning how to use the program and not learning the content of the class. The third problem with keeping technology separate is the situational nature of the classroom. A teacher can adjust a lesson to make sure it meets the needs of the specific group of students, but the instructional video cannot. It’s the same video every time it is played. Finally Mishra and Koehler say that keeping technology separate places an emphasis on “what” not “how.” From the teacher’s perspective the lesson becomes about what technology are we going to use today, what does it say, what skills does it require, instead of how can I teach my students.

 

Keeping technology as a separate knowledge set causes problems, but when we understand the framework of TPACK, we can integrate technology into the content and pedagogy of our classrooms. The integration will help our students learn more effectively. Mishra and Koehler suggest that TPACK should guide curriculum development and teacher education.

To apply TPACK to our classrooms now, Judith B. Harris and Mark J. Hofer worked with colleagues from universities around the United States to create Activity Types. Their article, “‘Grounded’ Technology Integration: Instructional Planning Using Curriculum-Based Activity Type Taxonomies,” explains how TPACK should change the way we plan our daily lessons. They describe a planning process where we first choose the learning outcomes that we will be working on that day or during that class session. The learning outcomes are the content. The second step they propose is choosing an activity type. The activity type is the pedagogy or how are the students going to learn the content. Finally, we can choose technologies that will support the activity type and aid the students in learning.

Harris, Hofer, and their colleagues show us with example after example of how our instructional planning should include each part of the TPACK framework and allow us to create and develop the overlapping knowledge to make the best learning environment for our students.

The simplest idea at play in TPACK is that a person who is a world-renowned expert in a subject might not be a great teacher because they lack the pedagogical knowledge to make the subject accessible and understandable. To be a great teacher, we have to combine our knowledge of the subject with our knowledge of how to teach. With the increasing focus on technology, we need to also learn how to combine technology with our content and pedagogy to create an effective learning environment.

1.

One of the most frequently employed models for research into new information technology acceptance. The TAM suggests that when users are presented with a new technology, a number of factors determine their decision about how and when they will use it. Learn more in: An Extension of the Technology Acceptance Model in Hospital-in-the-Home Units

2.

One of the most frequently employed models for research into new information technology acceptance. The TAM suggests that when users are presented with a new technology, a number of factors determine their decision about how and when they will use it. Learn more in: An Extension of the Technology Acceptance Model in Hospital-in-the-Home Units

3.

TAM is one of the pioneering theories which aims to determine behaviors of users towards particular technologies by employing two factors: perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use. Learn more in: Trends of Factors and Theories in Health Information Systems Acceptance: 2002 – 2014 Review

4.
An information systems theory that models how users come to accept and use a technology. The model suggests that the perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use of a technology are the main factors that influence a potential user's decision on whether or not to use the technology, and how. Learn more in: Instructor Perceptions and Intentions to Use a Tablet PC for Mobile Learning in a Ghanaian University: An Exploratory Case Study

5.

An information systems theory developed by Davis (1989) and attempts to study the IT acceptanceand linked perceptions. Learn more in: Study of Intentions to Use Cloud CRM Within Saudi SMEs: Integrating TAM and TPB Frameworks

6.

The TAM is an information systems theory that models how users come to accept and use a technology. The TAM was first introduced by Davis et al. in 1986 (Davis, 1989). The model provides a traditional view point about technology acceptance from users’ aspects. Learn more in: Online Trust in Mobile Commerce

7.

TAM models how users come to accept and use a technology. It distinguishes two concepts. First, the perceived usefulness reflects the expected benefits from using a certain technology. Second, the perceived ease of use reflects pretty much the same thing as the perceived behavioral control in the theory of planned behavior. Learn more in: Dynamics of Mobile Service Adoption

8.

It is a model of user acceptance of information systems technology based on the theory of reasoned action. Learn more in: Marketing Information System

9.

An information systems theory that models how users come to accept and use a technology. Learn more in: Analyzing the Use of Social Networks Sites in the Purchasing Decision Process

10.

A model developed to study the acceptance of the technology by an individual taking into account, basically, both the perceived easy of use and the usefulness of the technology. Learn more in: Use of E-Collaboration Technologies Among Students of Management

11.

The TAM was initially proposed by Davis (1989). It comprises two beliefs, the perceived utilities and the perceived ease of application, which determine attitudes to adopt new technologies. The attitude toward adoption will decide about the adopter’s positive or negative behavior in the future concerning new technology. Learn more in: Mobile Direct Marketing

12.

Was developed by Davis (1993) and theorized that attitude toward using technology is a function of two beliefs: perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use. Learn more in: A Comparison of Saudi and United States Faculty Use of Information and Communication Technology Tools

13.

This is a theoretical framework designed by Davis (1989) that proposes a relationship between users’ acceptance of a new IS and the users’ perceptions of the ease of use and usefulness of the IS.Learn more in: Virtual Reality and Virtual Environments in Education

14.

a model of individual acceptance of IT, stating that an individual’s adoption of IT is dependent on the perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness of the technology. Learn more in: Levels of Adoption in Organizational Implementation of E-Collaboration Technologies

15.

An information systems theory that models user acceptance. The model includes two main factors influencing individual IS use: perceived usefulness (will the system enhance my job performance?) and perceived ease-of-use (how difficult will it be to use the system?). TAM has been extended to include social influence and normative beliefs of others (TAM2). Learn more in: A Corporate Social Capital View on E-HRM Implementation

16.

A theory of innovation developed by Davis (1986) in which the main elements are perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, attitude toward using technology, and behavioral intention. Learn more in: Adoption of E-Commerce in SMEs

17.

A causal model hypothesizing that actual information technology system use is affected by behavioral intentions that themselves are affected by attitudes toward use. Beliefs about the system, perceived usefulness, and perceived ease of use in TAM directly affect attitudes toward use ( Davis, 1989 ). Learn more in: Gender and Computer Anxiety

18.

Theoretical framework developed by Davis in 1989 which identify perceived usefulness, ease of use, and cultural orientation of the decision maker as key drivers of technology adoption Learn more in: External Pressures for Adoption of ICT Services Among SMEs

19.

Technology acceptance models aim at studying how individual perceptions affect the intentions to use information technology as well as the actual usage. The Technology Acceptance Model was originally defined by Davis (1989), but it has subsequently been modified and augmented by other researchers. Learn more in: User Acceptance of Mobile Services

20.

Is one of the most widely used theories in IS literature. Two beliefs (perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use) predict attitudes, which in turn influence intended use of a technology. This intention then consequently impacts behavior of actual system usage. Perceived usefulness is the degree to which a user thinks a technology would enhance performance or productivity in the workplace. Perceived ease of use is the degree of lack of effort required by the user in adopting a given technology. Perceived ease of use also affects perceived usefulness. Learn more in: Contemporary Information Systems Alternative Models to TAM: A Theoretical Perspective

21.

TAM is a model of user acceptance of information systems technology based on the theory of reasoned action. Two variables perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use lead to attitude toward use, behavioral intention to use and use of the system. Learn more in: The Technology Acceptance Model and Other User Acceptance Theories

22.

In the TAM model, people who perceive technology as useful and easy to use will accept it more readily than those who do not, with usefulness more important than ease of use. Learn more in: A Framework for Analyzing Social Interaction Using Broadband Visual Communication Technologies

23.

The model was introduced in order to help researchers and practitioners to study the process of implementation of new technology in the workplace. It works by assessing attitude of personnel with respect to new technology over perceived ease of use and usefulness. Learn more in: Organizational Implementation of Healthcare Information Systems