Technology Selection

It is easy to feel overwhelmed when trying to determine which learning technology to use for your circumstance. There are an ever-increasing number of technologies vying for our attention and many of them seem to offer similar functionality. You may feel pressure to adopt particular technologies from your institution, colleagues, vendors, or even your students.  

How do you determine which technology is best suited for your context and needs? What sorts of questions should you be asking yourself? It is important to think critically about what you are trying to achieve. Are you trying to deliver content, facilitate interaction, provide feedback, or conduct an assessment? You may also need to consider questions surrounding accessibility, costs, and support services.

Below you will find a theoretical framework that can help guide you in evaluating the affordances, limitations, and appropriateness of learning technologies to assist you with their selection and application.  

SECTIONS Framework

The SECTIONS framework, originally developed by Bates and Poole (2003) and later revised by Bates (2019), is a practical framework comprised of eight components designed to assist educators make informed choices when evaluating, selecting, and applying learning technologies in alignment with their pedagogical goals. The framework encompasses a holistic approach, asking pedagogical, organizational, and technological questions that can be relevant at the classroom, faculty, or institutional level. As such, you may not be able to answer all the questions. The framework is not intended to provide a cumulative score, but rather a set of guiding questions to help you decide the appropriateness and potential of learning technologies for your specific needs.  

Bates (2019) recommends using the framework through a process of inductive reasoning,  

My suggested process is start with your gut feeling about which technologies you’re thinking of using, but keeping an open mind, then move through all the questions suggested in each of the SECTIONS criteria (that is, collecting evidence for or against your initial ‘gut feeling’.) You then start building more evidence to support or reject the use of a particular medium or technology. By the end of the process you have a ‘probabilistic’ view of what combinations of media will work best for you and why.  
Bates (2019)

The infographic below details the components of SECTIONS and some of the guiding questions you may want to consider. For a more in-depth examination of each component, refer to “Choosing and Using Media in Education” in Teaching in a Digital Age (3rd Edition).  

  • Will students have equitable access to the technology?
  • Is the technology appropriate for the student demographic?
  • What prior skills do you expect students to have?
  • What skills do you hope they will develop?
  • How can the technology be catered to different types of learners?
  • How intuitively easy is the technology to learn for you and your students?
  • How reliable is it?
  • Is it easy to maintain and upgrade?
  • Is there support available?
  • Are there risks involved?
  • Are costs involved for you or students (short-term and longterm)?
  • Are funding opportunities available?
  • Are there existing OERs available?
  • Will this require a significant time investment to develop?
  • Can using this technology save you time in other aspects of your teaching?
  • What are the educational affordances?
  • Does this technology support the desired learning outcomes?
  • Are there opportunities to change how you teach or how students learn?
  • What unique pedagogical characteristics of different types of media are appropriate for your context?
  • What types of interaction are needed to meet the learning outcomes?
  • To what extent does this technology help facilitate interaction between learner-learner, learner-content, and learner-instructor?
  • Is the technology supported by TRU?
  • Is help easily accessible?
  • To what extent am I expected to utilize technologies supported by TRU?
  • Who is responsible for managing the accounts of the technology (if relevant)?
  • Is it important for learners to be able to connect or publish their work outside of the confines of their course, such as with experts or the community?
  • Does the technology integrate with platforms supported by TRU, such as Moodle or WordPress?
  • Is the technology generally safe to use?
  • Is the technology compliant with FIPPA and institutional policies regarding the collection and storage of data?
  • Am I prepared to properly inform students of potential risks when operating outside of the confines of the course?

Adapted from Bates (2019)

SECTIONS-WordDownload

Technology Integration

Taking advantage of the affordances of learning technologies offers the potential to provide more immediate feedback, create authentic assessments, facilitate collaboration, and create new learning experiences. These new learning experiences can help develop 21st century and discipline-specific digital literacy skills in learners, as well as offer more personalized and networked learning opportunities, enabling learners to be active participants in knowledge construction inside and outside of the classroom.

SAMR Model – Overview & Examples

The SAMR Model, developed by Dr. Ruben Puentedura, is a framework to describe different degrees of technology integration. The model is divided into four levels: Substitution, Augmentation, Modification, Redefinition. The first two levels, substitution and augmentation, are described as an enhancement to the teaching and learning method. The modification and redefinition levels aim to transform the teaching and learning experience. Watch Introduction to the SAMR Model (opens in a new tab) for a video overview.

In this stage one form of technology is substituted for another with no functional change. Material is only changed in how it is delivered. You likely already engage in this stage on a regular basis.

Example: a video recording of a classroom lecture on water quality is made available for downloading by students.

In this stage one form of technology is substituted for another with functional improvements.

Example: a video lecture is embedded in Moodle, and chunked into four sections, with online multiple-choice questions at the end of each section for students to answer.

In this stage technology integration results in a significant redesign of the task.

Example: The instructor provides video recordings of water being tested. The instructor asks students to analyze each of the recordings in terms of the principles taught in the course, in the form of essay-type questions that are assessed

In this stage technology is used to create a new task that would not be possible without the technology.

Example: The instructor provides readings and online guidance through Moodle. Students are asked to use their phones to record how they selected samples of water for testing quality and integrate their findings and analysis in the form of an e-portfolio of their work.

Image credit: PowerSchool

In the video below, Dr. Ruben Puentedura describes how educators can apply the model’s concepts in their teaching practice.

Common Sense Education (2016, July 12). How to Apply the SAMR Model with Ruben Puentedura [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQTx2UQQvbU&t=1s

SCOR

  • Promotes digital literacy throughout the four levels of the model.
  • Provides the instructor with opportunities to learn and experiment with new technologies, which may enhance their teaching practice.
  • Allows the instructor to scaffold their assignment from being instructor-led to slowly removing supports, so students can practice and learn on their own.
  • Technological: Be mindful to make an appropriate choice of devices and tools. Be prepared to ensure the design is compatible with different devices and to provide support to students, if required .
  • Pedagogical: Be sure to incorporate the technology into the graded assignments and assessments for your course. This ensures full learner awareness of the technological requirements and the learning benefits to students.
  • Equitable: Be aware that not all students have access to the same technological devices. Inquire about your students’ technology access to ensure that there are no barriers to student success.
  • Evidence: Does not have a strong empirical research base to help validate the model. Best used as a heuristic device (Bates, 2019).
  • Critical thinking skills: The SAMR model provides opportunities for students to engage in deeper critical thinking skills as they “move up the ladder” to higher levels of learning with technology.
  • Technological skills: Using the SAMR model allows students the freedom to experiment with technological tools that enhance their learning.
  • Self-regulated skills: Integrating the SAMR model into your course gives students the space to develop self-regulated skills as the higher SAMR levels require learners to reimagine a task using technology.

Ask yourself these questions before integrating technology into your courses:

  • Is there a functional improvement in the assignment or assessment from using technology?
  • What is the purpose of integrating technology?
  • Which level of the SAMR model would you like to reach?

Concluding Remarks

The SAMR Model can help guide you in thinking critically about the level of technology integration in your teaching practice and the potential use of that technology. It can help you reflect on whether you are taking advantage of the affordances of technology to create transformative learning experiences, or merely enhancing current methods. With that said, keep in mind that the goal is not necessarily to always strive for redefinition. Substitution or augmentation may be perfectly suitable for your context.

Although Dr. Puentedura associates later stages of the SAMR model to Bloom’s higher order thinking skills, he notes, “It is important to realize that this association between SAMR and Bloom’s Taxonomy is not a necessary—or even habitual—coupling. Thus, it is possible to use extremely powerful redefinition-level approaches to make certain types of memorization tasks possible; conversely, it is also possible to undertake novel create-type tasks that only make basic substitution/augmentation use of the technology” (Puentedura, 2014). The model is commonly depicted with each stage building on the previous, beginning with Substitution on the bottom and Redefinition on the top, but it is more useful to think of the model as a continuum. Deciding on which level is appropriate depends on the learning outcome of the task and the reasoning for selecting a particular technology.

Adapted from University of Calgary SAMR and TPACK: Two Models to Help With Integrating Technology Into Your Courses under Creative Commons BY-NC-SA 4.0 License.

Further Resources

SAMR and Bloom’s Taxonomy: Assembling the Puzzle

This article looks at coupling the SAMR model and Bloom’s Taxonomy with examples.

Learn More →

8 Examples of Transforming Lessons Through the SAMR Cycle

This article takes 8 diverse activities and takes them through each stage of SAMR.

Learn More →

References

Bates, Tony (2019). Teaching in a Digital Age: Guidelines for Designing Teaching and Learning (2nd edition). BCcampus. https://pressbooks.bccampus.ca/teachinginadigitalagev2/.

Puentedura, R. (2014, September 24). Find out how you can use technology to engage students in rich learning experiences. [Blog post]. Retrieved from https://www.commonsense.org/education/articles/samr-and-blooms-taxonomy-assembling-the-puzzle/.