The SAMR Model

Share / assign

Why it works

When schools hand out devices, a great deal of the technology use that follows is substitution: the same worksheet, now a PDF; the same essay, now typed; the same quiz, now online. There is nothing wrong with substitution, but if it is all that happens, the technology has added cost and complexity without adding learning. The SAMR model, developed by Ruben Puentedura, gives teachers a plain language to notice this and push past it. It describes four levels of integration. Substitution: technology does exactly what the old tool did, with no functional change. Augmentation: technology substitutes with some functional improvement, an essay with instant spell-check and easy revision. Modification: the task itself is significantly redesigned because of the technology, a document several students edit together in real time. Redefinition: the technology makes possible a task that was simply inconceivable before, students collaborating with a class in another country, or publishing work to a real global audience. The point of the ladder is not that higher is always better, plenty of good teaching sits at the lower rungs, but that it gives a teacher a quick diagnostic: what level is this, and if it is substitution, is the technology earning its place or just adding friction? Used as a reflective tool rather than a scorecard, SAMR helps teachers aim technology at the tasks where it genuinely transforms what students can do.

The research: The SAMR model of technology integration (Puentedura).

The run-of-show

Choose your slot. The agenda, timings, and length update to match.

The core activity: place a lesson on SAMR and climb it

The heart of the session is diagnosing a real lesson's level and redesigning it higher where it is worth it.

Name the four levels: Substitution, Augmentation, Modification, Redefinition.
Place a real tech-using lesson on the ladder honestly.
Redesign it one rung higher where the lift genuinely improves learning.
Decide which lessons are worth Modification or Redefinition and which are fine left as substitution.

Is the tech doing what paper could not?SAMR, Substitution, Augmentation, Modification, Redefinition, is a diagnostic for that one question. Use it to push past substitution where transformation is worth it, not as a scorecard that says higher is always better.

Facilitator notes

Frame SAMR as reflection, not a ranking; good teaching lives at every rung, including substitution.
The useful question is not 'what level is this' but 'is the tech earning its place or adding friction'.
Aim the climb at lessons where Modification or Redefinition genuinely transforms what students can do.

Higher is not automatically betterSAMR misused becomes a race to Redefinition that bolts complexity onto lessons that were fine. The value is the diagnostic: climb where it transforms learning, leave well enough alone where it does not.

Adapt it

Elementary: keep examples concrete; show one familiar task at each of the four levels.
Secondary: target Redefinition where real audiences and collaboration genuinely change the work.
Any setting: use SAMR to prune substitution that adds friction, not just to add higher-rung tasks.

Participant handout

One page for every teacher. Print it, or save it as a PDF.

K12 Academics · Professional Learning

The SAMR Model: climb where it transforms

Four levels: Substitution, Augmentation, Modification, Redefinition, used to ask whether the tech is earning its place.

My tech-using lesson and its current SAMR level:
What would move it one rung higher:
Whether that climb genuinely improves learning:
Lessons worth Modification or Redefinition:
Substitution that is adding friction to prune:

Make it stick

SAMR works as a habit of reflection. Close by setting the follow-up:

Name a check-in: is your tech use climbing past pure substitution where it matters?
Bring one lesson you moved up a rung.
Keep asking whether the tech earns its place, not just what level it is.

Common questions

Should all my technology use be at the top of the ladder?

No. Plenty of good teaching sits at Substitution and Augmentation, and forcing every lesson to Redefinition just bolts complexity onto tasks that were fine. SAMR is a diagnostic, not a target. Climb where the higher rung genuinely transforms learning; leave the rest alone.

What's the real point of the model, then?

To make one question easy to ask: is this technology doing something the old tool could not, or is it the same task with added friction? If it is pure substitution that complicates without improving, SAMR prompts you to either climb to where it adds value or drop the tech. It aims technology at the tasks it actually transforms.

How is SAMR different from just 'integrating technology well'?

It gives the vague goal of good integration a concrete, shared vocabulary and a ladder to reflect against. 'Use tech meaningfully' is hard to act on; 'this lesson is Substitution, and here is how it reaches Modification' is specific enough to actually change the lesson.