International Journal of

ADVANCED AND APPLIED SCIENCES

EISSN: 2313-3724, Print ISSN: 2313-626X

Frequency: 12

line decor
  
line decor

 Volume 12, Issue 4 (April 2025), Pages: 99-106

----------------------------------------------

 Original Research Paper

Trends in SAMR research in teaching and learning from 2019 to 2024: A systematic review

 Author(s): 

 Zulfiani Zulfiani 1, *, Iwan Permana Suwarna 2, R. Ahmad Zaky El Islami 3, Indah Juwita Sari 4

 Affiliation(s):

  1Department of Biology Education, Faculty of Tarbiya and Teaching Sciences, Universitas Islam Negeri Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta, Tangerang Selatan, Indonesia
  2Department of Physics Education, Faculty of Tarbiya and Teaching Sciences, Universitas Islam Negeri Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta, Tangerang Selatan, Indonesia
  3Department of Science Education, Faculty of Teacher Training and Education, Universitas Sultan Ageng Tirtayasa, Serang, Indonesia
  4Department of Biology Education, Faculty of Teacher Training and Education, Universitas Sultan Ageng Tirtayasa, Serang, Indonesia

 Full text

    Full Text - PDF

 * Corresponding Author. 

   Corresponding author's ORCID profile:  https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9369-1418

 Digital Object Identifier (DOI)

  https://doi.org/10.21833/ijaas.2025.04.012

 Abstract

This study reviews research on the use of the SAMR model (Substitution, Augmentation, Modification, and Redefinition) in teaching and learning from 2019 to 2024. A systematic review was carried out by searching the Scopus database. Based on specific selection criteria, 11 journal articles were chosen for analysis. The review identified five main areas discussed in these studies: levels of technology use in teaching, problems and challenges in using technology, effects on student learning, differences in how SAMR is applied in different places, and how SAMR can support meaningful learning. The results show that many teachers are still using technology at the basic levels (substitution and augmentation) because of limited resources, lack of training, and weak support from their institutions. This review suggests that more teacher training and better support are needed to help teachers move to higher levels of technology use (modification and redefinition). The study also gives ideas for future research and practice in the field of educational technology.

 © 2025 The Authors. Published by IASE.

 This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

 Keywords

 Technology integration, SAMR model, Teaching and learning, Systematic review, Student outcomes

 Article history

 Received 25 October 2024, Received in revised form 4 April 2025, Accepted 20 April 2025

 Acknowledgment

No Acknowledgment.

  Compliance with ethical standards

  Conflict of interest: The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

 Citation:

 Zulfiani Z, Suwarna IP, El Islami RAZ, and Sari IJ (2025). Trends in SAMR research in teaching and learning from 2019 to 2024: A systematic review. International Journal of Advanced and Applied Sciences, 12(4): 99-106

  Permanent Link to this page

 Figures

  Fig. 1

 Tables

  Table 1  Table 2  Table 3

----------------------------------------------   

 References (53)

  1. Alfiana H, Karyono H, and Gunawan W (2022). The application of SAMR model and self-efficacy on critical thinking and procedural knowledge. LLT Journal: A Journal on Language and Language Teaching, 25(1): 200-217.  https://doi.org/10.24071/llt.v25i1.3893    [Google Scholar]
  2. Alnaser DSA and Forawi S (2024). Investigating the effects of virtual laboratories on students' motivation and attitudes toward science. Science Education International, 35(2): 154-162.  https://doi.org/10.33828/sei.v35.i2.9    [Google Scholar]
  3. Aprinaldi A, Widiaty I, and Abdullah AG (2018). Integrating SAMR learning model in vocational education. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, 434(1): 012309.  https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/434/1/012309    [Google Scholar]
  4. Ayu HD, Saputro S, and Mulyani S (2023). Reshaping technology-based projects and their exploration of creativity. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 19(1): em2217.  https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/12814    [Google Scholar]
  5. Balmes SR (2022). Technology integration and transformative innovation in education. Technology Integration and Transformative Innovation in Education, 106(1): 204-208.  https://doi.org/10.47119/IJRP1001061820223743    [Google Scholar]
  6. Bicalho RNDM, Coll C, Engel A, and Lopes de Oliveira MCS (2023). Integration of ICTs in teaching practices: propositions to the SAMR model. Educational Technology Research and Development, 71(2): 563-578.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-022-10169-x    [Google Scholar] PMid:36533221 PMCid:PMC9734760
  7. Boonmoh A and Kulavichian I (2023). Exploring Thai EFL pre-service teachers' technology integration based on SAMR model. Contemporary Educational Technology, 15(4): ep457.  https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/13567    [Google Scholar]
  8. Buledi MH and Badariah TAT (2024). Exploring digital technology usage among English language instructors at a Saudi higher education institution and validating a hierarchical structure of usage based on the SAMR model. IIUM Journal of Educational Studies, 12(1): 90-111.  https://doi.org/10.31436/ijes.v12i1.446    [Google Scholar]
  9. Cichoń M, Sypniewski J, and Piotrowska I (2024). The RIGMA model as a valuable tool for evaluating teachers’ technological advancement in distance education. Quaestiones Geographicae, 43(3): 87-101.  https://doi.org/10.14746/quageo-2024-0028    [Google Scholar]
  10. Dixon-Wood VL (2006). Assessment and intervention of speech disorders related to cleft lip and palate and velopharyngeal insufficiency. Perspectives on School-Based Issues, 7(2): 3-8.  https://doi.org/10.1044/sbi7.2.3    [Google Scholar]
  11. Djiwandono PI (2023). The effectiveness of flipped classroom for translation and storytelling skills, and knowledge of local culture during the COVID-19 pandemic. The New English Teacher, 17(1): 86-112.    [Google Scholar]
  12. Drugova E, Zhuravleva I, Aiusheeva M, and Grits D (2021). Toward a model of learning innovation integration: TPACK-SAMR based analysis of the introduction of a digital learning environment in three Russian universities. Education and Information Technologies, 26(4): 4925-4942. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10514-2    [Google Scholar] PMid:33814955 PMCid:PMC8003895
  13. Gawer A and Bonina C (2024). Digital platforms and development: Risks to competition and their regulatory implications in developing countries. Information and Organization, 34(3): 100525.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infoandorg.2024.100525    [Google Scholar]
  14. Higgins JP and Green S (2008). Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. John Wiley and Sons, Chichester, UK.  https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470712184    [Google Scholar]
  15. Howlett KM, Allred J, Beck D, and Mysore AR (2019). An English learner service-learning project: Preparing education majors using technology and the SAMR model. CALL-EJ, 20(2): 128-149.    [Google Scholar]
  16. Hwang GJ and Chien SY (2022). Definition, roles, and potential research issues of the metaverse in education: An artificial intelligence perspective. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 3: 100082.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2022.100082    [Google Scholar]
  17. Ibrahim FB and Mohammed AR (2024). The impact of using SAM model on the scientific mindfulness of 5 th grade primary school students. Pakistan Journal of Life and Social Sciences, 22(1): 3291-3303.  https://doi.org/10.57239/PJLSS-2024-22.1.00239    [Google Scholar]
  18. Inga E, Inga J, Cárdenas J, and Cárdenas J (2021). Planning and strategic management of higher education considering the vision of Latin America. Education Sciences, 11(4): 188.  https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11040188    [Google Scholar]
  19. Jiang MYC, Jong MSY, Chai CS, Huang B, Chen G, Lo CK, and Wong FKK (2024). They believe students can fly: A scoping review on the utilization of drones in educational settings. Computers and Education, 220: 105113.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2024.105113    [Google Scholar]
  20. Kafle B (2023). A review of a dissertation on the topic of “exploring the effects of an asynchronous professional development with the SAMR integration model on high school teachers’ technology integration in the classroom: An action research study”. The Journal of Aadikavi, 12(1): 72-84.  https://doi.org/10.3126/joaa.v12i1.65813    [Google Scholar]
  21. Kallakurchi JVR and Banerji P (2020). Use of robotics laboratory programs in improving STEAM outcomes in India. In the Proceedings of the 1 st International Conference on Human Interaction and Emerging Technologies, Springer International Publishing, Nice, France: 183-188.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-25629-6_29    [Google Scholar]
  22. Lestari SA and Munir A (2022). The use of the SAMR model to improve students speaking ability. English Education Journal, 12(4): 694-704.  https://doi.org/10.15294/eej.v12i4.70246    [Google Scholar]
  23. Li G and Ni X (2012). Use of technology to support the learning and teaching of English in China. In: Ruan J and Leung C (Eds.), Perspectives on teaching and learning English literacy in China: 145-160. Springer, Dordrecht, Netherlands.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4994-8_10    [Google Scholar]
  24. Lim CP and Khine M (2006). Managing teachers’ barriers to ICT integration in Singapore schools. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 14(1): 97-125.    [Google Scholar]
  25. Lionenko M and Huzar O (2023). Development of critical thinking in the context of digital learning. Economics and Education, 8(2): 29-35.  https://doi.org/10.30525/2500-946X/2023-2-5    [Google Scholar] PMid:37779831
  26. Mahendra IWE (2021). Triging student learning results with utilizing Google Classroom and zoom platform. Jurnal Ilmiah Sekolah Dasar, 5(2): 326-333.  https://doi.org/10.23887/jisd.v5i2.34900    [Google Scholar]
  27. McComb C, Leonard N, Letts M, Ruopp A, Todd C, Yang GM, and Zaszlavik K (2022). Zooming support: Stories of how a pandemic and SAMR improved preservice art education instruction. Art Education, 75(1): 42-48.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00043125.2021.1987830    [Google Scholar]
  28. McKnight K, O'Malley K, Ruzic R, Horsley MK, Franey JJ, and Bassett K (2016). Teaching in a digital age: How educators use technology to improve student learning. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 48(3): 194-211.  https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2016.1175856    [Google Scholar]
  29. Muslem A, Mustafa F, and Rahayu RR (2024). The preferred use of Google Classroom features for online learning in Indonesian EFL classes. Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 22(8): 76-92.  https://doi.org/10.34190/ejel.22.8.2896    [Google Scholar]
  30. Muslimin AI, Mukminatien N, and Ivone FM (2023a). TPACK-SAMR digital literacy competence, technostress, and teaching performance: Correlational study among EFL lecturers. Contemporary Educational Technology, 15(2): 1–15.  https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/12921    [Google Scholar]
  31. Muslimin AI, Mukminatien N, and Ivone FM (2023b). TPACK-SAMR based lecturers’ digital literacy competence and its implementation in EFL classroom. Computer-Assisted Language Learning Electronic Journal, 24(3): 154-173.    [Google Scholar]
  32. Nguyen HH (2024). Investigating Vietnamese tertiary EFL teachers ‘levels of information and communication technology integration through the lens of the SAMR model. VNU Journal of Foreign Studies, 40(1): 57-75.  https://doi.org/10.63023/2525-2445/jfs.ulis.5225    [Google Scholar]
  33. Oguguo B, Ezechukwu R, Nannim F, and Offor K (2023). Analysis of teachers in the use of digital resources in online teaching and assessment in COVID times. Innoeduca. International Journal of Technology and Educational Innovation, 9(1): 81-96.  https://doi.org/10.24310/innoeduca.2023.v9i1.15419    [Google Scholar]
  34. Orak SD and Alagözlü N (2023). Examination of ELT lecturers’ digital technology integration levels via SAMR model during emergency remote education. Bartın University Journal of Faculty of Education, 14(1): 13-29.  https://doi.org/10.14686/buefad.1265006    [Google Scholar]
  35. Pellas N, Dengel A, and Christopoulos A (2020). A scoping review of immersive virtual reality in STEM education. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 13(4): 748-761.  https://doi.org/10.1109/TLT.2020.3019405    [Google Scholar]
  36. Pomeranz AH (2024). Use of Minecraft education to teach 5 th grade common core mathematics standards relating to measurement of geometric volume. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Southern Maine, Portland, USA.    [Google Scholar]
  37. Prakash L (2022). Technology from the UDL perspective enhances the effectiveness of teaching and learning processes. Journal of Educational Research and Policies, 4(8): 170-177.  https://doi.org/10.53469/jerp.2022.04(08).34    [Google Scholar] PMid:19254523
  38. Qiao S, Nina L, Nagbdu K, and Alexander G (2024). The landscape design in online education programs based on interactive technologies. International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education (IJERE). 13(4): 2603-2612.  https://doi.org/10.11591/ijere.v13i4.28111    [Google Scholar]
  39. Radhi RI and Sabri DA (2021). The effect of the SAMR model on acquiring teaching skills for students of colleges of education in the subject of teaching applications. International Journal of Early Childhood Special Education 13(2): 1289-1296.  https://doi.org/10.9756/INT-JECSE/V13I2.211176    [Google Scholar]
  40. Rahmadı IF (2021). Teachers' technology integration and distance learning adoption amidst the COVID-19 crisis: A reflection for the optimistic future. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 22(2): 26-41.  https://doi.org/10.17718/tojde.906472    [Google Scholar]
  41. Ratten V (2023). The post COVID-19 pandemic era: Changes in teaching and learning methods for management educators. The International Journal of Management Education, 21(2): 100777.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2023.100777    [Google Scholar] PMCid:PMC9910020
  42. Reardon T, Belton B, Liverpool‐Tasie LSO, Lu L, Nuthalapati CS, Tasie O, and Zilberman D (2021). E‐commerce's fast‐tracking diffusion and adaptation in developing countries. Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, 43(4): 1243-1259.  https://doi.org/10.1002/aepp.13160    [Google Scholar]
  43. Sarah LL, Nahadi N, and Sriyati S (2024). Drivers and barriers of science teacher development program on STEM learning using Arduino. Jurnal Pijar Mipa, 19(4): 606-614.  https://doi.org/10.29303/jpm.v19i4.6905    [Google Scholar]
  44. Sari IJ, El Islami RAZ, Fitriana DNE, Ratnasari D, Rifqiawati I, Wahyuni I, and Nuangchalerm P (2024). Plug and unplugged activities to enhance computational thinking self-efficacy of pre-service biology teachers. Jurnal Pendidikan Sains Indonesia, 12(2): 393-402.  https://doi.org/10.24815/jpsi.v12i2.37016    [Google Scholar]
  45. Sastria E (2023). Indonesian pre-service and in-service science teachers’ TPACK level. International Journal of Biology Education Towards Sustainable Development, 3(1): 1-15.  https://doi.org/10.53889/ijbetsd.v3i1.143    [Google Scholar]
  46. Suwarna IP and Zulfiani Z (2024). Development of WIV-S physics e-learning to improve inquiry abilities and digital literacy of prospective science teacher students. International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 14(9): 1291-1298.  https://doi.org/10.18178/ijiet.2024.14.9.2159    [Google Scholar]
  47. Tay LY, Heng T, Ng JKJ, and Lye SY (2020). Designing technology-enhanced mathematics lessons with SAMR model. In: Lee NH, Seto C, Rahim RA, and Tan LS (Eds.), Mathematics teaching in Singapore-volume 1: Theory-informed practices: 19-33. World Scientific, Singapore, Singapore.  https://doi.org/10.1142/9789811220159_0002    [Google Scholar]
  48. Tlili A, Padilla-Zea N, Garzón J, Wang Y, Kinshuk K, and Burgos D (2023). The changing landscape of mobile learning pedagogy: A systematic literature review. Interactive Learning Environments, 31(10): 6462-6479.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2022.2039948    [Google Scholar]
  49. Tunjera N and Chigona A (2020). Teacher educators' appropriation of TPACK-SAMR models for 21 st century pre-service teacher preparation. International Journal of Information and Communication Technology Education (IJICTE), 16(3): 126-140.  https://doi.org/10.4018/IJICTE.2020070110    [Google Scholar]
  50. Wijaya TT, Rizki LM, Yunita W, Salamah U, Pereira J, Zhang C, Li X, and Purnama A (2021). Technology integration to teaching mathematics in higher education during coronavirus pandemic using SAMR model. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 2123(1): 012043.  https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/2123/1/012043    [Google Scholar]
  51. Yusuf F, Rahman TKA, and Subiyakto A (2024). Information technology readiness and acceptance model for social media adoption in blended learning: A case study in higher education institutions in West Java, Indonesia. Journal of Applied Data Sciences, 5(2): 382-402.  https://doi.org/10.47738/jads.v5i2.195    [Google Scholar]
  52. Zawacki-Richter O, Kerres M, Bedenlier S, Bond M, and Buntins K (2020). Systematic reviews in educational research: Methodology, perspectives and application. Springer Nature, Berlin, Germany.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-27602-7    [Google Scholar]
  53. Zhang Z and Wasie S (2023). Educational technology in the post-pandemic era: Current progress, potential, and challenges. In the Proceedings of the 15 th International Conference on Education Technology and Computers, ACM, Barcelona, Spain: 40-46.  https://doi.org/10.1145/3629296.3629303    [Google Scholar]