Article Review #6: The SAMR Model as a Framework for Evaluating mLearning by Lisa C. Kidder, Danae Romrell & Emma Wood

Kidder, L.C., Romrell, D. & Wood, E. (2014) The SAMR Model as a Framework for

            Evaluating mLearning. Online Learning: Official Journal Of The Online

Learning Constortium, 18(2). Retrieved from

http://olj.onlinelearningconsortium.org/index.php/jaln/article/view/435

Summary:

            In this article the authors defined mLearning as learning that is personalized, situated, and connected through the use of a mobile device.  mLearning is personal because each student can use their own mobile device and have a choice for the colors, fonts, apps, and accessories with their device.  mLearning is situated because the mobile devices allow for learning to be situated within a real-world setting.  The mobile device allows learning to come to the student regardless of time or location.  mLearning is connected because the mobile device allows for instant connectivity to the internet, video, phone calls or text messaging. 

            The authors in the article then went on to use the SAMR model as a framework to evaluate mLearning.  The SAMR model consists of four classifications; substitution, augmentation, modification and redefinition.  If mLearning is in the substitution classification then the learning activity could have been done without the use of a mobile device.  If mLearning is in the augmentation classification the activities go beyond the substitution level in that they provide some type of functional improvement over what could have been achieved with traditional tools.  If mLearning is in the modification classification then use of the mobile device has made the learning transform.    If mLearning is in the redefinition classification then students were able to participate in learning that would not have been possible without the use of the mobile device. 

            The authors found that when using the SAMR to help design instruction then learning can be transformed.  The authors found that if students only used mobile devices at the substitution and augmentation classifications then there wasn’t as much of an impact on what the students learned or how long they retained the information.  However, when students used the mobile devices more at the modification and redefinition classifications then the learning was transformed and students were able to retain the information learned for a longer period of time.

             

Reflection:

            I like the ide of using the SAMR model as a tool for evaluating how effective the technology is in the lesson and to what degree the technology is being used.  I have been guilty of doing the same thing I could have done with paper and pencil but I used technology instead.  I think many of us are stuck in the substitution classification of the SAMR model.  This article helped me understand the difference in just using technology because it is there versus using the technology to transform the learning that is happening in the classroom.  I feel that there are times when technology should just be used as a substitution, but a teacher can get stuck just there.  Teachers need to push themselves to move through the SAMR model and transform learning.  In the real-world students are going to be just answering questions on paper.  They are going to have to know how to communicate with each other and how to problem solve quickly.  Having lessons that force the students to do that will help prepare them for their future.