At my first professional placement where I taught algorithms and iterations when teaching programming to Year 7-8 students under the Technology Mandatory (NSW) syllabus, the integration of technology progressed to the Redefinition stage of the SAMR framework. Students first modelled algorithmic logic through collaborative paper flowcharts, before transferring their understanding using MIT’s Scratch program.This shift redefined the task’s purpose, enabling students to test, debug, and visualise interactive systems that could not exist through paper-based means. Hilton (2016) identifies Redefinition as a stage where technology “creates novel tasks previously inconceivable,” while Hamilton, Rosenberg and Akcaoglu (2016) caution that SAMR should be applied contextually, recognising the complexity of teaching environments. In this controlled BYOD context, technology served a pedagogical purpose, aligning with Marcovitz and Janiszewski (2016), who argue that digital tools must enhance higher-order thinking rather than substitute existing practice. Phillips (2015) similarly warns that effective integration depends on teacher intentionality and awareness of contextual barriers. The lesson’s sequencing, from concept development to authentic digital creation, models reflective and transformative integration. Students co-constructed knowledge and demonstrated computational reasoning that went beyond procedural learning, embodying SAMR’s transformative potential when pedagogy and technology come together purposefully.
The same lesson reflected a deliberate progression mapped to Bloom’s Digital Taxonomy. Students began by recalling and explaining algorithmic structures (Remembering, Understanding) before constructing paper flowcharts (Applying) and critiquing logic through peer discussion (Analysing). Once directed to use their devices, learners synthesised and evaluated their knowledge through Scratch coding (Creating, Evaluating). Marcovitz and Janiszewski (2016) contend that coupling Bloom’s hierarchy with digital tools ensures technology supports, rather than replaces thought, encouraging learners to progress toward creative synthesis of theory and practice. Phillips (2015) reinforces that authentic digital integration requires reflection and autonomy, not mere adoption of new tools. This alignment led to higher-order thinking and metacognitive awareness as students iteratively debugged and refined their code. Hilton (2016) asserts that such structured progression ensures technology amplifies conceptual and content mastery rather than distracts from it. Consequently, students reached the Creating level, designing functional programs that demonstrated innovation and logical reasoning, showing how intentional scaffolding within a BYOD framework promotes creativity, critical analysis, and deep digital literacy and fluency.
Hamilton, E. R., Rosenberg, J. M., & Akcaoglu, M. (2016). The Substitution Augmentation Modification Redefinition (SAMR) model: A critical review and suggestions for its use. TechTrends, 60(5), 433–441. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-016-0091-y
Hilton, J. T. (2016). A case study of the application of SAMR and TPACK for reflection on technology integration into two social studies classrooms. The Social Studies, 107(2), 68–73. https://doi.org/10.1080/00377996.2015.1124376
Marcovitz, D., & Janiszewski, N. (2016). Technology, models, and 21st-century learning: How models, standards, and theories make learning powerful. In Proceedings of the Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 721–726). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).
Phillips, M. (2015). Digital technology integration. In M. Henderson & G. Romeo (Eds.), Teaching and digital technologies: Big issues and critical questions (pp. 318–331). Cambridge University Press.