Compton and Burke (2020) further expanded on SAMR to give more explicit definitions that would reduce ambiguity in the use of the framework. They looked into fifty-seven studies of SAMR and mobile technologies between 2010 and 2017. After their comparison and evaluation, the researchers developed this table to demonstrate their understanding and results of their research. Their findings support the supposition that mobile technology can indeed be used for transformational learning experiences, but found most current researchers were only attempting lower levels of SAMR in their studies (Crompton & Burke, 2020).

Criticism of the SAMR framework, as discussed in Hamilton, et al. (2016) includes the reliance on the technology aspect versus pedagogical reasoning when integrating technology. The researchers suggest a broader look at learning outcomes, the classroom environment, and the students themselves, not just the tool and how it is used. They suggest a redesign that allows a more flexible approach that considers the entire context of the learning, not just the small role technology plays in one part of the lesson. Guhlin (2015) points out that SAMR, like many frameworks before it and after, may fail, because of the strict adherence put on the levels and not the outcomes of learning. However, as the classroom teacher, you are the ultimate expert who can determine the appropriate level and how technology best fits your classroom, lesson, and students (McMillan, n.d.). SAMR can also remind us to keep our learning outcomes at the forefront and to not just throw technology into a lesson randomly, but to use it purposefully and thoughtfully to bring students a higher understanding of the concepts (EdTech Classroom, 2021). Winkelman (2020) argues there is little research that offers proof that lessons utilizing tools and activities considered Redefinition or Modification on the SAMR scale actually increase student learning outcomes.

The visuals of SAMR that have been produced to this point normally show a ladder or staircase model, with Substitution being on the bottom and Redefinition at the top, as seen below. This hierarchical viewpoint leads to the idea that Substitution is bad while Redefinition is the best use of instructional technology.

A suggested rethink of this visual suggests more of a spectrum with the enhancement of Substitution and Augmentation on one end and the integration of technology with Modification and Redefinition as a replacement on the other end. This enables us to look at the framework as not being one level better, instead, the framework is applied as appropriate for the lesson and technology integration (SAMR Model: A Practical Guide for K-12 Classroom Technology Integration 2021).

This graphic details the SAMR model in a horizontal alignment, which presents the flow much better than the ladder model previously used. The examples shown illustrate how at each level of SAMR students can use technology to complete activities and allows teachers to select what best fits their lesson, their students, and their environment (Integrating technology into your classroom with the SAMR model, 2018).