SAMR vs TIM

Sounds like a B-movie title to me.

SAMR and TIM were both conceived around 2006 to try to create a way for teachers and administrators to track or determine how teachers were beginning to use technology in the classroom. They were both developed for use by different states but essentially they were meant to do the same thing. I think they are both adequate for what they were intended to do but, (you knew there would be a but. I know you saw that coming) I don't think we are applying them correctly at least I hope so. Before I continue, I want to say that at this point I thought I liked TIM better because it at least includes the student in the model but it is too detailed and seems to model exactly the opposite of what it intends. I don't necessarily understand how they get their conclusions but the attempt is made. SAMR allows some freedom to interpret lessons without being told what to do but TIM gives the freedom to just use technology without redefining a lesson to incorporate new technology. Let's break down both models.

SAMR is like chasing a ghost. You can get to R, redefinition, but it won't last. Once you finally get there, technology will change and you have to redefine your lesson again to a point that what you are doing couldn't have been done before. I think SAMR works well if you are being technology specific but if you are looking at the process as a whole what happens when the technology changes? I might achieve an R but 1 year later I'm stuck doing things like I have been and therefore what couldn't have been done before has been done for at least a year.  SAMR requires constant redefinition. When does it stop? The example used by Dr. Puentedura involves Google Earth. Would that same lesson be viable today as a SAMR model? I have to sidenote and say the latte example I watched was just dumb.

TIM does much the same thing except it is more specific and detailed. After looking through lessons that involved Moodle and other out of date programs, I looked at the math lesson in the highest square possible. The outcome was impressive but I don't understand how it fits the very detailed explanation of what that area looks like for teachers and students. Basically kids wrote out and recorded the process of how to work problems involving decimals. The teacher then used several different pieces of software to put it all in one place so kids could hear and see the problems being worked. It took over 2 weeks and most of the technology use was done by the teacher. The kids just recorded themselves and this was the one they chose as their flagship for the proper way to be at the highest position on their chart?

I think both TIM and SAMR have their place. They are excellent guides for teachers who want to start using technology and know where they stand with its use. They may realize they have a ways to go before they reach the goal they set for themselves. I don't believe either model should be used to judge a teacher's use of technology. Both models are quickly outdated forcing teachers to constantly change. Both models seem to advocate the use of technology for the sake of using technology. There is no need to rewrite everything just so that it is being done with technology. This is my original thought. Hopefully this was not the intent of these models but it seems to be how they are being applied at this time. Forcing the use of technology for the sake of using technology is to ignore and stifle certain aspects of creativity. Let's not just let the technology do it for us and ignore the physical exhilaration of doing it ourselves.