Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
0
Diffusion Theories
INTC 5110
Fall 2010
Diffusion and Adoption
 Technology and Instructional Design can be seen as
innovations
 New inventions/practices
 The s...
Process
 Everett Rogers’ book, Diffusion of
Innovations, first set out this idea of a
diffusion and adoption process.
 I...
Adopter Categories
 In each community, organization, or group there are
different types of people:
 Innovators are the 2...
Adoption Curve
FIGURE 1. How individual adoptions compose diffusion.
Straub E T REVIEW OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
2009;79:625-649
Copyright ...
Time to Adoption
 Usually adoption
follows a pattern of a
slow start (only the
Innovators and Early
Majority), followed b...
Theory of Perceived Attributes (Rogers)
 Increased adoption if perceived by adopters
in certain ways:
 Trialability - Ca...
How it Applies
 When looking to infuse technology into a
community (an organization or a school
district, for example), t...
How it Applies
 Used for:
 Planning systemic change and reforms
 Increasing utilization of specific instructional
produ...
Determinist versus Instrumentalist
 Determinist – technology is a force that takes
over the process, and we are knowing o...
Determinist versus Instrumentalist
http://www2.gsu.edu/~wwwitr/docs/diffusion/
Determinist versus Instrumentalist
 Determinist ID models
 Deterministic in belief that superior technological
products ...
Determinist versus Instrumentalist
 Instrumentalist ID models
 Focus on the human and interpersonal aspects of
innovatio...
Determinist versus Instrumentalist
http://www2.gsu.edu/~wwwitr/docs/diffusion/
User Oriented Instructional Development
 Burkman (1987)
 Identify the potential adopter
 Measure relevant potential ado...
CBAM (Concerns Based Adoption Model)
 Hall and Hord (1987)
 Change facilitators understand change from the
point of view...
CBAM Assumptions
 CBAM was developed based on six explicit
assumptions:
 “Change is a process, not an event.”
 “Change ...
CBAM Components
 Stages of concern (SoC)
 Levels of use (LoU)
 Innovation configuration (IC).
TAP and UTAUT
Technology Acceptance Model
Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology
Facilitative Conditions
 Ely (1999) identified eight common conditions
for implementation:
 Dissatisfaction with present...
Other Factors
 A host of other factors can also impact
whether an innovation is adopted, including:
 Organizational clim...
Applied to Organizations
 So how does technology and instructional
design become diffused and adopted?
 What make some i...
Some Background
 Instructional Design and Technology (IDT)
 “ID” Came out of systems thinking and military/corporate
pra...
Goal of IDT
 Understanding the potential for technology to
be used in conjunction with instructional
design to enhance le...
Example: Objectives
 Objectives
 In IDT field, started in 1960s with Mager, and also via
Programmed Instruction (Skinner...
Example: Problem-Based Learning
 Idea that using authentic problems and cases
when teaching helps students achieve
higher...
Implications
 Obviously, IDT has not had wide adoption in K-12 schools.
 Expectations often not met.
 Not part of K-12 ...
Diffusion
Diffusion
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Diffusion

1,582

Published on

Published in: Technology, Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
1,582
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
38
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • How individual adoptions compose diffusion.
  • Transcript of "Diffusion"

    1. 1. Diffusion Theories INTC 5110 Fall 2010
    2. 2. Diffusion and Adoption  Technology and Instructional Design can be seen as innovations  New inventions/practices  The success of innovations lies in how widely they are distributed (diffused) and accepted (adopted).  Diffusion and adoption has to do with studying the extent to which an innovation is used or not used, and why.  Looks at how people adapt to innovations, and the complexity of social and other structures that impact an innovation’s acceptance.  http://rer.sagepub.com/content/79/2/625.full
    3. 3. Process  Everett Rogers’ book, Diffusion of Innovations, first set out this idea of a diffusion and adoption process.  Innovation-Decision Process Model: Knowledge Persuasion Decision Implementation Confirmation
    4. 4. Adopter Categories  In each community, organization, or group there are different types of people:  Innovators are the 2.5% who readily adopt. These are the people who will try any new technology that comes along.  Early Adopters are the 13.5% who are persuaded quickly and try the innovation and find it useful.  Early Majority are the 34% who wait for Early Adopters to have success then adopt.  Late Majority are 34% who adopt once an innovation has become commonplace.  Laggards are the 16% who either never adopt or fight adoption after it has become common.
    5. 5. Adoption Curve
    6. 6. FIGURE 1. How individual adoptions compose diffusion. Straub E T REVIEW OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH 2009;79:625-649 Copyright © by American Educational Research Association
    7. 7. Time to Adoption  Usually adoption follows a pattern of a slow start (only the Innovators and Early Majority), followed by a rapid adoption (the Early Majority and Late Majority) then slowing down. Source: http://www.sfu.ca/~anethert/cns-491-lecs/cns-491-5/id53.htm
    8. 8. Theory of Perceived Attributes (Rogers)  Increased adoption if perceived by adopters in certain ways:  Trialability - Can be tried on a limited basis before adoption  Observability- Offers observable results  Relative Advantage - Has an advantage relative to other innovations  Complexity - Is not overly complex  Compatibility - Is compatible with existing practices and values.
    9. 9. How it Applies  When looking to infuse technology into a community (an organization or a school district, for example), the diffusion and adoption process helps you:  Plan for best chance of success  Identify important persons (users)  Measure potential concerns/ problems  Identify obstacles and plan to overcome
    10. 10. How it Applies  Used for:  Planning systemic change and reforms  Increasing utilization of specific instructional products and processes  Useful as a tool for evaluating progress
    11. 11. Determinist versus Instrumentalist  Determinist – technology is a force that takes over the process, and we are knowing or unknowing slaves to it  Instrumentalist – we control technology, using it as a tool for our own aims and goals http://www2.gsu.edu/~wwwitr/docs/diffusion/
    12. 12. Determinist versus Instrumentalist http://www2.gsu.edu/~wwwitr/docs/diffusion/
    13. 13. Determinist versus Instrumentalist  Determinist ID models  Deterministic in belief that superior technological products and systems will, by virtue of their superiority alone, replace inferior products and systems  Potential adopters are viewed as being predisposed to adopt innovations that are quantifiably superior (top-down?)  Diffusion through technological superiority is the implicit goal of the process http://www2.gsu.edu/~wwwitr/docs/diffusion/
    14. 14. Determinist versus Instrumentalist  Instrumentalist ID models  Focus on the human and interpersonal aspects of innovation diffusion  View the individual who will ultimately implement the innovation in a practical setting, as the primary force for change  A variety of factors, most unrelated to technical superiority, influence the decision to adopt or reject an innovation http://www2.gsu.edu/~wwwitr/docs/diffusion/
    15. 15. Determinist versus Instrumentalist http://www2.gsu.edu/~wwwitr/docs/diffusion/
    16. 16. User Oriented Instructional Development  Burkman (1987)  Identify the potential adopter  Measure relevant potential adopter perceptions  Design and develop a user-friendly product  Inform the potential adopter (of the product's user-friendliness)  Provide Post Adoption Support
    17. 17. CBAM (Concerns Based Adoption Model)  Hall and Hord (1987)  Change facilitators understand change from the point of view of the people who will be affected by change  Bring about systemic restructuring by understanding the social, political, and interpersonal aspects  http://www.nas.edu/rise/backg4a.htm
    18. 18. CBAM Assumptions  CBAM was developed based on six explicit assumptions:  “Change is a process, not an event.”  “Change is accomplished by individuals.”  “Change is a highly personal experience.”  “Change involves developmental growth.”  “Change is best understood in operational terms.”  “The focus of facilitation should be on individuals, innovations, and context.”  (Hord, Rutherford, Huling-Austin, & Hall, 1987)
    19. 19. CBAM Components  Stages of concern (SoC)  Levels of use (LoU)  Innovation configuration (IC).
    20. 20. TAP and UTAUT Technology Acceptance Model Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology
    21. 21. Facilitative Conditions  Ely (1999) identified eight common conditions for implementation:  Dissatisfaction with present process  Knowledge and skills exist  Availability of resources  Availability of time  Rewards and incentives  Participation by all parties  Commitment  Leadership
    22. 22. Other Factors  A host of other factors can also impact whether an innovation is adopted, including:  Organizational climate  Demographics  Relative advantage  Complexity vs. Simplicity  “Trialability” before wholesale adoption
    23. 23. Applied to Organizations  So how does technology and instructional design become diffused and adopted?  What make some innovations more likely to be adopted?  What innovations have been successfully implemented already?
    24. 24. Some Background  Instructional Design and Technology (IDT)  “ID” Came out of systems thinking and military/corporate practice  “T” developed from visual communications and instructional media  Where the two meet they have been prone to misunderstandings  See IDT people as strictly technologists  See value as technology integration specialists  Merely an add-on to existing practice, not as redefining practice
    25. 25. Goal of IDT  Understanding the potential for technology to be used in conjunction with instructional design to enhance learning and performance.  Understand how people utilize technology, and support the development of new practices that foster learning and achievement.  Provide alternative methods and strategies for adoption.
    26. 26. Example: Objectives  Objectives  In IDT field, started in 1960s with Mager, and also via Programmed Instruction (Skinner).  In K-12, started in 1970s with administrative push for teacher planning.  Expectations of their value have been high, but research mixed.  Many times seen as trivial by teachers and trainers.  Best when used to make sound decisions about instructional strategies  Low impact for this innovation.
    27. 27. Example: Problem-Based Learning  Idea that using authentic problems and cases when teaching helps students achieve higher-order outcomes such as critical thinking.  Often works when done correctly.  However, it takes a great deal of work, and often appears misaligned to curriculum standards (does not teach to the test).  Some adoption, but not on large scale.
    28. 28. Implications  Obviously, IDT has not had wide adoption in K-12 schools.  Expectations often not met.  Not part of K-12 culture.  Standards and other initiatives take precedence.  Still seen as technologists.  Yet we persist in trying to match the two, and we get many students in Masters programs in IDT.  Value seen at the small scale level (one teacher, one school)  Inherent belief that we can do things better  Technology is a tool, and ID is a process, with great potential; we just need to figure out better ways of using them in K-12
    1. A particular slide catching your eye?

      Clipping is a handy way to collect important slides you want to go back to later.

    ×