PIC-RAT)¶

Theory · All theories
Evidence · 7 claims (2 for, 5 mixed) · 8 studies (3 theoretical, 2 review, 1 causal, 1 associational, 1 design), q1–q3 · 1 of 8 report an effect size · 6 claims rest on one study

Description¶

Several closely related models help teachers and designers judge the effect a specific use of technology is having on instruction, rather than whether technology is used at all (Kimmons, 2018):

RAT (Hughes, Thomas, & Scharber, 2006) — technology use either Replaces a prior practice with no discernible change in outcomes, Amplifies learning that was already occurring, or Transforms learning in ways that were not previously possible.
SAMR (Puentedura, 2003) — Substitution (a direct tool swap, no functional change), Augmentation (a small functional improvement), Modification (a significant redesign of the task), or Redefinition (the task becomes possible only because of the technology). SAMR splits RAT's single "amplify" level into two (augmentation vs. modification), giving finer-grained distinction between small and large functional improvements.
PIC-RAT (Kimmons, 2018) — crosses RAT's teacher-facing question (is the technology used to Replace, Amplify, or Transform prior practice?) with a second, learner-facing question: what is the student's relationship to the technology — Passive, Interactive, or Creative? Plotting both questions on a grid distinguishes, for example, a teacher merely projecting notes instead of writing on a chalkboard (Passive-Replace) from students creating and publishing a collaborative writing blog (Creative-Transform).

The shared claim across all three models is that low-value technology integration substitutes for a prior practice with no functional change, while high-value integration uses the technology to do something that was previously impossible — and that most classroom technology use starts, and often stays, in the low-value quadrant unless teachers are deliberately pushed to reconsider it.

Implications¶

Context¶

Requirements¶

An existing (or imaginable) non-technology version of the task, so that "replace" vs. "amplify/transform" has a clear point of comparison
Willingness to redesign the task itself, not just swap tools, to reach the higher (transform/redefine) levels

Constraints¶

These are heuristic, self-assessment frameworks, not empirically validated learning-outcome predictors — a "transformative" use of technology is not guaranteed to produce better learning outcomes than a well-designed "substitution" use; the framework describes the kind of change, not its educational value in a given context
Provides no guidance on which content/pedagogy/technology combination to choose in the first place — see TPACK for that prior decision

Target Learners¶

Not learner-facing; a self-assessment tool for teachers and designers reflecting on their own technology choices

Target Learning Objectives¶

Not a learning objective — a design heuristic for evaluating whether a planned or existing use of technology is worth the investment relative to a non-technology alternative

Claims¶

Most AI implementations in undergraduate higher education sit at the SAMR Substitution or Augmentation levels, with fewer Modification cases and one Redefinition [~W] — attached 2026-10-10 from AlSheikh MH et al. (2026), which proposed "SAMR model of technology integration levels (Substitution, Augmentation, Modification, Redefinition)".
Free ChatGPT use boosts originality on the assisted creative task but the advantage disappears when assistance is removed [~W] — attached 2026-10-12 from Wong et al. (2026), which proposed "ISAR model: four types of AI effects on learning".
Substituting tasks with generative AI may promote inclusion and free time for more demanding activities, but risks foundational-skill loss and presupposes prior knowledge [~W] — attached 2026-10-12 from Rummel et al. (2026), which proposed "SAMR model: four levels of technology use from substitution to redefinition".
Immersive technologies such as virtual reality should reinforce, not substitute, the original educational action [+W]
The educational value of GAI is contingent on pedagogical integration, not on the technology itself [+W]
Policy guidance is most actionable for final-output substitution scenarios [~W]
Minority of undergraduate health science students reported using GenAI for reflective writing, mostly to support rather than replace reflection [~W]

The evidence by question¶

Where on the substitution-to-redefinition range does educational technology use actually sit? Most AI implementations in undergraduate higher education sit at the SAMR Substitution or Augmentation levels, with fewer Modification cases and one Redefinition [+M]
Does using technology to transform a task, rather than substitute for it, change what learners learn? The educational value of GAI is contingent on pedagogical integration, not on the technology itself [+W]

TPACK — TPACK informs which technology, pedagogy, and content combination to choose; SAMR/RAT/PIC-RAT then evaluates the effect of that choice

Examples¶

A history teacher moving class notes from a chalkboard to a PowerPoint slide — Passive-Replace on the PIC-RAT grid
Students producing and publishing a collaborative creative-writing blog that solicits peer, parent, and public feedback — Creative-Transform on the PIC-RAT grid

Key Sources¶

Kimmons, R. (2018). K-12 technology frameworks. In R. West (Ed.), Foundations of Learning and Instructional Design Technology. EdTech Books. https://edtechbooks.org/lidtfoundations/k12_tech_frameworks
Hughes, J., Thomas, R., & Scharber, C. (2006). Assessing technology integration: The RAT — replacement, amplification, and transformation — framework. In C. Crawford et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2006 (pp. 1616–1620).
Puentedura, R. R. (2003). A matrix model for designing and assessing network-enhanced courses [Unpublished].

Page metadata

Field	Value
`type`	`theory`
`id`	`technology-integration-levels`
`title`	`Technology Integration Levels (SAMR / RAT / PIC-RAT)`
`description`	`A family of frameworks (RAT, SAMR, PIC-RAT) for judging whether a specific use of technology in instruction merely replaces a prior practice or meaningfully improves or transforms it.`
`status`	`review`
`canonical`	`True`
`generated`	by `claude/unspecified` on `2026-08-29`
`trust`	unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content

Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.