This page collects a handful of posts that turn a critical eye on the SAMR model (and its creator). If you are exploring the applications of SAMR I hope you will take these insights into consideration.
Mark Anderson admits to having lauded SAMR in the past, but in a very short post he points out a cluster of entangled problems with the model, including its lack of context for integrating technology.
“The trick is, technology use is at its best when it is purposeful. When its use is linked closely to the learning outcomes of the learning sequence so that it enhances the learning experience.”
LeiLani Cauthen exposes a “major and fundamental flaw” in the SAMR model.
“It is used to describe change within the traditional paradigm of school…. It rarely considers contextualization against the new models of school that are being created and experimented with. Rarely does SAMR spark the conversation of changing the paradigm.”
This blogger collects thoughts from other critiques, including a block quote from the apparently-no-longer-available Mark Samberg peice, “Why I’m done with SAMR.”
“…the biggest thing is that SAMR does not address instructional context. It focuses solely on the task without looking at the instruction that goes behind it.” (Samberg, qtd in Guhlin)
Jonas Linderoth searches for the purported research behind the SAMR model onto to come up empty-handed. He then turns his attention to the credentials of creator of the model… once again, finding little of substance.
“…the image that emerges is more of an independent consultant serving companies with commercial interests in the one-to-one reform.”
Krista Moroder does not set out to critique SAMR, but her observations do have that effect:
“…[SAMR] not only isolates the tool from instruction, but it also seems to suggest that teachers are using lower level teaching strategies before using “technology” (and then suddenly, when they start using Google Docs, they learn how formative assessment works!). I don’t think that is reflective of reality….”