Angela Grace is a 21 year old female graduated from English Department of Petra Christian University. During college, her favorite subject was Technology in Language Education.

 

Abstract

This study set out to investigate the application of the SAMR model by an English teacher of “S” Senior High School in teaching speaking, reading, listening and writing. This study was based on Puentedura (2013) theory about SAMR (Substitution, Augmentation, Redefinition and Modification) model. The data were collected by collecting the teacher’s RPPs and asking some questions to the teacher. The writer found that the teacher used Microsoft PowerPoint, Microsoft Word, Youtube website and Edmodo as the learning technologies in his English classes; but operated mostly at the substitution level. The collected data also indicated that the teacher did not use various learning technologies and did not reach the modification and redefinition levels due to the teacher’s lack of knowledge and his belief of his students’ inabilities in using technologies.

 

Introduction

The way classroom operates today is significantly different from how it operated ten or 20 years ago. Nowadays, technology has become a potential tool which gives impact to the nature of teaching and learning. Today’s teachers are expected to integrate technology in their pedagogical activities. Indonesian Minister of Education Regulation no. 16 year 2007 states that there are five aspects of professional competence that a teacher should have. The fifth aspect is to utilize technology to be able to communicate and to create self-development, especially e-learning in teaching process (Permendiknas, 2007). Unfortunately, despite of the regulation and the variety of learning technologies available, some teachers may face difficulties and decide not to integrate technology into their classrooms. 

Considering this problem, Puentedura (2013) developed SAMR (Substitution, Augmentation, Modification, Redefinition) model as a framework that will help teachers infuse technology into teaching and learning process (cited in Schrock, 2018). SAMR model shows that integrating technology is not only about choosing the suitable learning technologies but also how to improve students’ learning process using technology (Floris & Renandya, 2017). SAMR model itself consists of four levels, which are substitution, augmentation, modification and redefinition.

Substitution is the first level of SAMR which represents the lowest and the basic level of technology usage in the classroom. In substitution level, technologies are used as direct substitutional tools without changing the function (Puentedura, 2013). Microsoft Word and Keynote are the example of technologies that can be used for substitution level. Augmentation is the second level of SAMR model which uses technologies as direct substitutional tool with functional improvements (Puentedura, 2013). In this level, teachers may use slightly advance tools or learning technologies, such as google docs, google form, etc. These learning technologies have additional functions, such as auto saving, auto syncing and sharing which makes it easier for the teacher to assess the students’ work and give feedbacks or reviews.

Modification is the third level of SAMR. In the modification level, technologies are used to redesign significant task in any classroom activities or projects (Puentedura, 2013). Teacher and or students can use iMovie and Windows Movie Maker, for example, to combine audio, texts and video in a presentation (Schrock, 2018). Redefinition is the final level of SAMR model. Redefinition level refers to the usage of technology to create tasks and various types of learning that were once impossible to do in the classroom (Puentedura, 2013), such as using PowToon to create video or Nearpod to create an interactive presentation (Floris & Renandya, 2017).

The writer decided to choose SAMR model as the main theory because of two reasons. First, SAMR model connects easily with student-centered design (Hilton, 2016). SAMR model provides steps on how to integrate technology in classroom activities which enables the students to develop and to create something new. As a result, each activity can be examined for specific purposes to implement technology in a way that will improve students’ independence in learning. Second, SAMR is also a new model that was developed by Puentedura in 2013.

Therefore, using SAMR model will make it easier for teachers to relate the framework with current teaching and learning condition. Since SAMR model is newly invented, to the writer’s knowledge, there have been few qualitative analyses on its pedagogical implementation.  In addition, there are not many studies talking about SAMR and its relation to language skills. So far, the writer can only find the implementation of SAMR model in reading classroom in one study conducted by Budiman, Rahmawati, & Ulfa, (2018) about EFL teacher’s beliefs & practice on integrating ICT as the implementation of SAMR model in teaching reading descriptive text at MA Assalam, Sukoharjo.

In the present study, the writer would like to observe the implementation of the SAMR model in a 12^th grade English classroom. The writer would specifically focus on finding out which SAMR levels and which learning technologies were used by the 12^th-grade-English teacher in conducting speaking, reading, listening and writing lessons. The writer would then try to see whether there would be any differences and/or similarities related to the implementation of the SAMR model and the use of the learning technologies for teaching each language skill. This is because the writer supports Green’s statement (2005) that technology plays an important part in providing valuable language experiences for English Language (EL) learners.

 

Methods

This research was conducted using qualitative method to allow a deeper insight into how the English teacher tried to integrate technology into his pedagogical activities.

The source of the data for this research is teacher’s lesson plan or Rencana Pelaksanaan Pembelajaran (RPP) developed by a 12th-grade- English teacher named Mr. “D”. These RPPs were used for teaching English at “S” school in the 2017/2018 academic year. In total, there were seven RPPs submitted by the teacher for the writer to analyze. In doing the RPP analysis, the writer focused on the language skills, classroom activities, media, and learning objectives. These four features are essential as technology (or learning technologies) should be used to support and enrich the teaching and learning materials and activities as well as to achieve the objectives of the English lessons.

While reading the RPPs, the writer highlighted some interesting facts (statements, activities, learning technologies) which were worth investigating. The writer then prepared a set of questions to ask to Mr. “D”. The format of the question-and-answer session was semi-structured because a semi structured interview would allow flexibility to probe for further details. The transcriptions of the question-and-answer session were analyzed using the content analysis.

 

Findings

This section presents the results of the analysis. The findings are presented in two main sub sections.

SAMR Levels and Learning Technologies Used by the English Teacher in Teaching Speaking, Reading, Listening and Writing

In delivering the result of the analysis on SAMR levels and learning technologies used by Mr. “D” as the English teacher of “S” school, the writer divided the findings section into four sub-sections based on the four skills, which are speaking, reading, listening, and writing.

 

a. Speaking

In general, as stated in Mr. “D”’s RPPs, the learning objectives for teaching speaking were for the students to be able to understand the use of the materials in real-life contexts and to be able to differentiate terms and expressions used in different communication contexts. In addition, the students were expected to be able to practice by performing dialogues or having presentations. The teacher would give examples and ask his students to imitate. After imitating the teacher, students were asked to create and present their own texts.

To fulfill those learning objectives, Mr. “D” developed five major types of activities for his RPP: asking questions, discussing examples, re-presenting the materials, delivering discussion results and presenting the result of group discussion.

Mr. “D” only integrated learning technologies in his fourth classroom activity, i.e. delivering discussion result.

Table 1. Speaking Class:  Delivering the Results of Discussions

RPP no.	Classroom Activities
4	Delivering the results of discussions (example: 7th meeting: Students are asked to analyze and present the conclusion of the material: social function. This can be done orally by using media or written).
5	Delivering the results of discussions (example: 5th meeting: Students are asked to analyze and present the conclusion of the material. This can be done orally by using media, or written).
6	Delivering the results of discussions (example: 7th meeting: Students are asked to analyze and present the conclusion of the material. This can be done orally by using media, or written).

The use of learning technologies may not be written clearly in the RPP. However, during question-and-answer session, Mr. “D” stated that his students often used Microsoft PowerPoint to deliver their presentations. Therefore, for speaking activities, it can be safely concluded that Microsoft Power Point was the only learning technology used in Mr. “D”’s class. The use of Microsoft Powerpoint by the teacher was at substitution level. The use of learning technology is considered to be in the substitution level because Mr. “D” used Microsoft PowerPoint only to substitute the use of traditional media in the classroom, i.e. whiteboard or posters.

 

b. Reading

In general, the learning objectives of the reading class, as stated in Mr. “D”’s RPPs, were for the students to be able to be able to identify the elements of texts by determining the differences and similarities among texts or sentences and understanding the context of texts via the text structure. Students were also asked to analyze the content and element of texts for them to be able to grasp the meaning of a text or sentence.

To achieve the learning objectives for the teaching of reading skill, Mr. “D” conducted four major type of activities namely observing examples, reading, observing language structure and reading other materials.

The use of learning technologies by Mr. “D” for reading activities can be seen in his second and third major activities, i.e. reading and observing language structure. In reading activity, it is mentioned in teacher’s RPP that students are allowed to read from other supporting books from website.

Table 2. Reading Class: Reading

RPP no.	Classroom Activities
3	Reading (example: 4th meeting: Students are asked to do literacy activities at home and school by reading materials from textbook or other supporting books from websites related to material: Scope of situation)
4	Reading (example: 7th meeting: Students are asked to do these literacy activities at home and school by reading materials from textbook or other supporting books from websites related to material: Indirect and direct quotes)
5	Reading (example: 4th meeting: Students are asked to do literacy activities at home and school by reading materials from textbook or other supporting books from websites related to material: Statement and questions related to conditional sentences)

However, when asked by the writer why he did not instruct his students to visit specific websites as reading sources, Mr. “D” answered because he would like his students to decide where to find the information by themselves. When the students had to give reports on what they had read, Mr. “D” asked his students to use Microsoft Powerpoint as to implement the use of learning technologies in the classroom.

Another learning technology used by Mr. “D” is internet (website). He used internet as to get the pictures/ videos/ slides that he used for teaching reading.

From the overall data, it can be seen that the use of learning technologies (websites and Microsoft Power Point) by Mr. “D” is in substitution level.  Mr. “D” used the learning technologies only to substitute the printed sources of supplementary reading materials and the old/traditional chalk-and-board technique of presenting ideas/materials.

 

c. Listening

Mr. “D”’s RPP showed there were three main learning objectives for listening skills. First, students should be able to identify interaction by examining videos. Second, students should be able to determine linguistic elements of what they have heard. Third and last, students should be able to grasp the meaning by determining the expressions.

In order to achieve those learning objectives, Mr. “D” performed four major types of activities which were written out in his RPPs. These activities are listening, paying attention to teacher’s explanation, observing objects/ events and exchanging information.

The implementation of learning technologies by Mr. “D” was in his first and third major activity, i.e. listening and observing objects/ events. The use of learning technologies or the specific name of the websites used by Mr. “D” was not mentioned in his RPP.

Table 3. Listening Class: Listening

RPP no.	Classroom Activities
3	Listening (example: 2nd meeting: Teacher gives material about actions/ activities/ events)
4	Listening (example: 6th meeting: Teacher gives material about direct and indirect sentences and articles)
5	Listening (example: 3rd meeting: Teacher gives material about asking for directions)

During the question-and-answer session, the writer tried to find out more about the specific name of the website that Mr. “D” used in his classroom. He stated that he used Youtube websites as to find videos as the supplementary materials for listening and observing objects/ events activity.

The aforementioned data clearly showed that Mr. “D” used YouTube website as the learning technology when he conducted the observing activity. In relation to the SAMR level for listening skill, the data shows that Mr. “D” used YouTube website in substitution level. The writer came to this conclusion because the teacher was using videos from YouTube only to substitute the traditional way of teaching listening which is by listening to the audio provided by the textbook.

 

d. Writing

For writing skill, there were four learning objectives which were needed to be fulfilled based on Mr. “D”’s RPPs. The first objective was to enable the students to compose short and simple writings applicable to different kind of contexts. The second objective was for the students to be able to compile various types of texts. Next, the students were able to analyze the differences and similarities of texts. The last objective was to enable the students to identify the linguistic elements and text structure used in writing.

To achieve those learning objectives, there are six major types of activities which were developed by Mr. “D”’s and mentioned in his RPPs: Writing summary, compiling list of questions, gathering information, conveying the result of discussion, concluding important points and answering questions. In addition to those six main activities, Mr. “D” conducted one more activity which was about taking and completing the competency tests at the end of each class meeting.

Even though there were six activities, but the use of learning technologies by Mr. “D” can only be found in his second activity, i.e. compiling list of questions. In this activity, students had to read and observe the material before making the list of questions.

Table 4. Writing Class: Compiling List of Questions

RPP no.	Classroom Activities
2	Compiling list of questions (example: 2nd meeting:  Teacher asks the students to observe and to read the material about letters. Then, the students have to list questions related to the material).
3	Compiling list of questions (example: 3rd meeting: Teacher asks the students to observe and to read the material about people/ things. Then, the students have to list questions related to the material).
4	Compiling list of questions (example: 7th meeting: Teacher asks the students to observe and to read the material about direct and indirect quotes. Then, the students have to list questions related to the material).

Mr. “D” informed the present writer that he allowed his students to use Microsoft Word to compile the list of questions and to submit their work via Edmodo.  

The use of Microsoft Word was for the students to list questions. In this case, the learning technology was meant to substitute the traditional way of listing questions i.e. using notebook. Therefore, the writer concluded that Mr. “D” used learning technology Microsoft Word in substitution level.

Another learning technology used by the teacher for writing skill was Edmodo. This platform allows the teacher to receive students’ works and directly corrects them. In the question-and-answer session, Mr. “D” stated that he also used Edmodo to create multiple choices as additional exercises for his students.

In addition of using learning technologies at substitution level, Mr. “D” was also able to integrate learning technologies at the augmentation level. According to SAMR model theory by Puentedura (2013), technology usage can be categorized into augmentation if the said learning technologies have additional features and functions such as auto-saving, auto-syncing, and sharing; all of which makes it easier for the teacher to assess the students’ work and give feedbacks and/or reviews.       

Reflecting upon the extract of the conversation, Mr. “D” mentioned that he asked his students to submit their writings via Edmodo.  By using Edmodo, Mr. “D” would be able to view or read his students’ works easily and give immediate feedback or grades as the features of Edmodo enable him to do so. Mr. “D” also used Edmodo to develop new learning exercises in the form of multiple choices. This is a form of his usage of Edmodo’s additional features and functions. The use of Edmodo’s features showed that in this case, Mr. “D” was able to integrate learning technology at augmentation level.

The Similarities and Differences Related to the SAMR Levels and Learning Technologies Employed in Teaching Speaking, Reading, Listening and Writing.

Based on the results of data analysis presented in the previous section, the writer found similarities and differences on the integration of the SAMR model and the use of learning technologies in Mr. “D”'s practices in teaching speaking, reading, listening and writing.

The first similarity is that Mr. “D” used two learning technologies namely Microsoft Office and the Websites i.e. YouTube and Edmodo websites in some of his teaching practices.  He never used other learning technologies. The second similarity is that Mr. “D”’s use of learning technologies mostly fell into the substitution level of the SAMR model. The teacher used the learning technologies simply to substitute traditional media such as the whiteboard and paper.

The first difference that the present writer noticed from analyzing the data is that Mr. “D” employed different learning technologies depending on the type of classroom activity that he would carry on. For example, for teaching/learning writing, in particular for compiling list of questions, Mr. “D” allowed his students to use Microsoft Word; while for teaching/learning speaking, in particular for delivering the result of discussions, he encouraged his students to use Microsoft PowerPoint.

Another difference that the writer noticed was on the level of the SAMR model integrated in Mr. “D”’s teaching practices. The substitution level of the SAMR framework was implemented when Mr. “D” used learning technologies in some teaching/learning activities in his speaking, reading, listening, and writing classes. Interestingly, in his writing class, Mr. “D” was also able to integrate learning technologies in the augmentation level.

 

Discussion        

The following section presented the writer’s opinion and further discussion regarding the findings of the study. The previous analysis showed that the teacher Mr. “D” had tried to bring learning technologies into his English classrooms. The reasons why Mr. “D” tried to utilize learning technologies into his classrooms were because he found two benefits of implementing learning technologies into his teaching practice.

First, he stated that using technology in class would grab the students’ attention.

Interviewer     : Why do you use technology in your teaching practice?

Teacher “D”       : First, students nowadays do not like old ways of teaching, like, for example, by just using textbooks as in my years. So now, as modern teachers, we should peruse things that will challenge and attract their attention. I think, technology is the way and the answer.

Second, Mr. “D” understood that the use of learning technologies in this modern era could increase students’ interests in learning English. He believed that nowadays, students did not like the traditional ways of teaching/learning which used traditional media. He also mentioned this when he explained his reasons of using Edmodo. He stated that by using learning technologies, he could change the way he transferred information to his students and he found that the students seemed to become more receptive.

Interviewer     : Why Edmodo?

Teacher “D”    : Because I never used Edmodo before. But, one of my friends, another teacher, introduced me to Edmodo. So, I tried it. Then, I found an interesting thing relating to the way you use the app. So, I think, when we use Edmodo, we change the way we bring information, the way we bring the subjects/materials into the classroom. This attracts students’ attentions in studying the materials.

The goverment clearly provided some space for teachers to write down how they would use technologies in his teaching by providing templates requiring teachers to use learning technologies in classroom. This might be one of the ways for the government to encourage and to give freedom to the teachers to bring learning technologies into their classrooms.  

However, in real-life practices, Mr. “D” did not seem to make the most of this opportunity. He, for example, used worksheets only for observation activities although in the RPP, he stated that observation should be done by using worksheets and interactive media.

Mr. “D” also used two learning technologies only: Microsoft Office and Websites for most of his pedagogical activities. A possible explanation for this might be that the teacher had limited knowledge on various learning technologies could     be        used to support different teaching activities. It seems that Mr. “D” got new             information related to learning technologies from one source only, i.e. his            colleague. He had not got any chances to attend trainings on learning technologies. This might be the reason why he had limited knowledge on learning technologies.

Interviewer      : How did you learn about using technology to teach English? Did you learn it by yourself?

Teacher “D”   : I learned it from another teacher.

Interviewer      : So, did your school ever provide some trainings regarding how technologies can be used or integrated in your teaching? Have you ever joined a training?

Teacher “D”   : No, no training.

Interviewer     : Never?

Teacher “D”   : Yeah.

Interviewer     : But did the government ever give invitation to your school to join trainings

Teacher “D”   : I think yes but I didn’t go to that trainings. I mean I didn’t know about that.

Interviewer     : So, the school never tells you about that?

Teacher “D”   : Maybe another teacher but I didn’t know about that.

A study by Sumintono, Wibowo, Mislan & Tiawa (2012) revealed that similar finding. The teachers involved in their study hoped that they would get some trainings in using learning technologies for teaching and learning process. This was because many teachers were lack of technological skills and they did not        know how to bring technologies into their classrooms (Sumintono et al., 2012).

Mr. “D” had mostly used learning technologies at the substitution level. This might be caused by the presence of an assumption that, using an advanced learning technology in a class would result in difficulties for the students.

Interviewer      : Whenever you ask your students to share their discussion or their analysis, did you ever ask them to use YouTube or any other media? Did you ever ask your students to share their discussion to YouTube so that other people would be able to see their analysis and their perceptions about the materials that you have taught them.

Teacher “D”   : I think that it will be too difficult for them. Maybe, next semester or next year, but I don’t know.

This thinking, in the present writer’s opinion, might result in the teacher not maximizing the usage of any learning technologies. The teacher focused on the use of technology for the substitution level because he thought that his students were not ready; while the students might be more than ready for augmentation, modification, and redefinition levels. 

Thus, as Firdaus (2018) states, it is important for teachers, who wish to integrate learning technologies into their classrooms, to take into account their students’ technological knowledge and skills.

 

Conclusion

From the analysis on the teacher’s RPPs and answers during the question-and-answer session, the writer found that the teacher operated mostly on the substitution level of the SAMR model. The learning technologies used were Microsoft PowerPoint, Microsoft Word, Youtube website and Edmodo. These learning technologies were integrated into some pedagogical activities in speaking, reading, listening, and writing classes and were used mainly to substitute the traditional media such as whiteboard, notebook, audio from the textbook and printed materials. In his writing class, the teacher was able to integrate learning technologies into augmentation level particularly when he used Edmodo to develop multiple choice exercises and score his students’ submitted works.

The writer also found similarities and differences of the application of SAMR levels and the learning technologies used by the teacher in conducting classroom activities. The first similarity is that the teacher used two learning technologies namely Microsoft Office and the Websites, i.e. YouTube and Edmodo website, in some of his teaching practices. He never used other learning technologies. The second similarity is that the teacher’s use of learning technologies fell mostly into the substitution level of the SAMR model. The teacher used the learning technologies simply to substitute traditional media such as the whiteboard and paper.

The first difference that the present writer noticed from analyzing the data is that the teacher employed different learning technologies depending on the type of classroom activity that he would carry on. Another difference that the writer noticed was on the level of the SAMR model integrated in the teacher’s teaching practices. The substitution level of the SAMR framework was attained when the teacher used learning technologies in his speaking, reading, listening, and writing classes and the augmentation level was reached in his writing class.

Mr. “D” was observed on using limited number of learning technologies because he might not have enough technological knowledge due to the lack of trainings or references to consult to. The teacher also applied the learning technologies at the substitution and augmentation levels; he did not climb further into the modification and redefinition levels. This might be because he thought that his students would have problems if he applied the learning technologies in the Modification and Redefinition levels. 

In spite of the limitations, the writer hopes that the finding of this current study   would certainly add to the readers’ understanding of how to implement the      SAMR framework and to utilize learning technologies in teaching speaking,      reading, listening and writing. Moreover, the writer hopes that the present study would inspire other researchers to conduct similar studies about the SAMR         model and the use of technologies for educational purposes.

 

References

Budiman, A., Rahmawati, R. & Ulfa, R.A. (2018). EFL teacher’s beliefs & practice on integrating ICT in the classroom: A case study on the implementation of SAMR model in teaching reading descriptive text at MA Assalam, Sukoharjo, Jurnal Penelitian Humaniora, 19(2), 39-51.

Firdaus, T. (2018). Pemanfaatan media berbasis teknologi dalam pembelajara.Retrieved from https://bit.ly/3fgTH62

Floris, F.D. & Renandya, W.A. (2017). Transforming the teaching of listening and reading using the SAMR model. Modern English Teacher, 26 (4), 41-44.

Green, T. (2005). Using technology to help English language students develop language skills: A home and school connection. Retrieved from https://bit.ly/3cSt4TB

Hilton, J.T. (2016). A case study of the application of SAMR and TPACK for reflection on technology integration into two Social classrooms. The Social Studies, 107(2), 68-73.  Permendiknas. (2007). Salinan lampiran Peraturan Menteri Pendidikan Nasional nomor 16 tahun 2007 tanggal 4 Mei 2007 Standar Kualifikasi Akademik dan Kompetensi Guru. Retrieved from https://bit.ly/2MQws70

Puentedura, R. (2013). SAMR: first steps. Retrieved from  http://www.hippasus.com/rrpweblog/archives/000134.html

Schrock, K. (2018, August 21) SAMR and Bloom’s. Retrievedfrom http://www.schrockguide.net/samr.html

Sumintono, B., Wibowo, S.A., Mislan, N. & Tiawa, D.H. (2012). Penggunaan teknologi informasi dan komunikasi dalam pengajaran: survei pada guru- guru sains smp di Indonesia, 17(1). Retrieved from http://journal.fpmipa.upi.edu/index.php/jpmipa/article/view/251

 

Please check the Methodology and Language for Secondary course at Pilgrims website.

Please check the Teaching Advanced Students course at Pilgrims website.