Technology integration at the Modification level necessitates a considerable task redesigning (Hamilton et al., 2016). For instance, a class teacher modifies how students learn about light by switching from displaying a graphic of light travel to presenting an immersive light simulation using a computer, with parameters that students may adjust. Instructors attain the top-most level redefinition when they create new tasks using technology (Hamilton et al., 2016). For instance, a fifth-grade teacher may ask students to develop and present their ideas through independently generated and edited films rather than directing them to write persuasive essays based on historical studies.  

    The SAMR paradigm has drawn some criticism even though it frequently arises in discussions about incorporating digital technology into educational practice. For starters, SAMR portrays learning and teaching as a product by focusing on tasks done with digital technology. Nevertheless, Hamilton et al. contend that one can best define learning and teaching as processes rather than products. Another criticism is that since SAMR is expressed in brief assertions subject to interpretation, instructors' and researchers' perspectives about how to tie practices to the paradigm may differ. The occurrence becomes clear when researchers build on the framework or use it in conjunction with other models when analyzing literature. Additionally, SAMR fails to recognize the impact of context. So, crucial contextual elements are not acknowledged, including technological infrastructure and resources, instructor expertise and support for utilizing technology, learners' collective and individual needs, and community support.

    Finally, the hierarchical depiction of SAMR makes upward progress seem too stiff to accurately capture the fluid nature of utilizing digital technology in teaching and learning across particular settings. This illustration similarly emphasizes redefinition and prioritizes change above augmentation. It is essential to emphasize that while SAMR has received criticism, such objections have not been supported by thorough literature appraisals. A methodologically rigorous examination of SAMR's application in research is, thus, required.

Reference:
Hamilton et al., 2016

    Although one can argue that allowing students to be creative is frequently more advantageous than allowing them to be passive and that integrating technology in a way that morphs a lesson rather than essentially substituting conventional practice is more valuable, instructors must be advised against presuming that each lesson must aim for the right corner (CT). Nevertheless, PICRAT's developers stress that the matrix is only relevant at the activity rather than the course or instructor levels. Contrary to other earlier models, such as SAMR, which purport to categorize a person's or a classroom's aggregate technology utilization, this model acknowledges that instructors must employ a range of technologies to be efficient, and usage must include exercises spanning the whole matrix. RAT is an evaluation model for comprehending the impact of technology in learning, teaching, and curricular routines, initially devised for PK–12 education.

Reference: Kimmons et al., 2020