Posted March 20, 2017on:
Recently I got workshop participants to teach one another the concept and components of SAMR. I then concluded the session with some thoughts and examples of my own.
But I forgot this brilliant tweet I archived in Evernote.
Amy Burvall (@amyburvall) November 10, 2014
The components of SAMR — substitution, augmentation, modification, redefinition — were mapped to the lay language of same-same, not so lame, reframe, and change the game.
SAMR as a framework for technology integration is not step-wise or procedural. There is no requirement to start with substitution and blindly aim for redefinition. The same could be said about Bloom’s Taxonomy (which I why I prefer my revision of the already revised BT).
For example, it is possible to be at death by didactic PowerPoint presentation (S) and to learn how to redefine teaching by getting learners to co-create and teach content (R) by sharing openly editable Google Slides instead. The focus is not the technology alone but also the pedagogy, content, context, and connectedness (TPCK+).
Not every context and content requires a reframing or redefinition, nor is this possible. An expensive or dangerous field trip might be substituted or augmented with a simulation or an annotated Google Map journey, and the learning might still be powerful and meaningful.
SAMR: Easy to understand; even easier to abuse. When you learn something new, do not do the same-same thing as before because that is lame. Reframe your mindset so that you change the game.