Using marketing models to review academic staff acceptancePresentation Transcript
Dr Sue GreenerS.L.Greener@ brighton.ac. ukBrighton Busin ess School, University ofBrighton, UK
RESISTANCE“Resistance is what keeps us from attaching ourselves to every boneheadedidea that comes along” (Maurer 1996, cited in Waddell and Sohal, 1998: 545)
ACADEMIC STAFF ADOPTION OFTECHNOLOGY – AND MARKETING MODELS Morris & Rippin (2002) Institutional adoption models: Enthusiast/explorer, emulator, efficiency seeker, entrepreneur The basic marketing model: Product, Price, Place & Promotion (e.g. Kotler) Sheth & Sisodia (2012) Acceptability, Affordability, Accessibility, & Awareness • Extent to which the innovation meets Acceptability user expectations • Ability and willingness to pay (not just Affordability money but time) • Availability and convenience of Accessibility innovation • Knowledge of products, features, Awareness applications
RESPONSES TO USING LEARNINGTECHNOLOGIESMOST FULFILLING?“fun”, “access anytime”, “learningwith students”, “real timeinteraction”, “creative process”,“empowering students” The self-professed earlyLEAST FULFILLING? adopters focussed more on“unreliable access”, “clumsy technical software issues ofoperation”, “extra workload”, adoption“not enough time to experiment”, The mainstream group“not knowing how”, “colleague focussed more on time andinertia” workload issues
DISCUSSION Davis’ Technology Acceptance Model (1989): Perceived usefulness and Perceived ease of use Liao and Lu (2008): Compatibility (with teaching beliefs) and Relative advantage (of change compared with status quo) But also consider digital skillsets, personal entrepreneurship, subject disciplines and frequency of internet usage
Staff unlikely to adopt TEL: Themes arising from unstructured interviews1.Lack of interest and curiosity with regard to learning technologies2.Difficulties with navigation on web and VLEs3.Persuaded of view that uploading materials would decrease class attendance4.Focussed on the learning value of face to face interaction in the classroom5.Focussed on the learning value of face to face interaction in the classroom6.Strong core pedagogic beliefs, often drawing on personal experiences of learning7.Unhappy about sharing materials on web or VLE8.Association of web usage with surface learning for students9.Aiming to reproduce face to face teaching paradigm online10.Belief that they are lazier than those who use learning technologies, justifying this on time grounds11.Often last minute preparation of teaching
Hypothesized factors differentiating academic Themes arising from unstructured interviews population in relation to learning technologies adoption 1.Lack of interest and curiosity with Internet usage, teacher role? self-efficacy?regard to learning technologies 2.Difficulties with navigation on web and Digital skill setVLEs 3.Persuaded of view that uploading Teaching beliefsmaterials would decrease class attendance 4.Focussed on the learning value of face Teaching beliefsto face interaction in the classroom 5.Focussed on the learning value of face Teaching beliefsto face interaction in the classroom 6.Strong core pedagogic beliefs, often Subject sub-disciplines, teaching beliefsdrawing on personal experiences of learning 7.Unhappy about sharing materials on Internet usage, teacher role?web or VLE 8.Association of web usage with surface Teaching beliefslearning for students 9.Aiming to reproduce face to face Teaching beliefs / digital skill setsteaching paradigm online 10.Belief that they are lazier than those Digital skill setwho use learning technologies, justifying thison time grounds 11.Often last minute preparation of Teaching beliefs, teacher role?teaching
Hypothesized factors differentiating academic population in Sheth and Sisodia model (2012) dimensions Themes arising from unstructured interviews relation to learning technologies implicated adoption 1.Lack of interest and curiosity with Internet usage, teacher role? Awareness: product knowledgeregard to learning technologies self-efficacy? Acceptability: psychological acceptability 2.Difficulties with navigation on web and Digital skill set Awareness: product knowledgeVLEs Acceptability: functional acceptability 3.Persuaded of view that uploading Teaching beliefs Awareness: product knowledgematerials would decrease class attendance 4.Focussed on the learning value of face Teaching beliefs Acceptability: psychological acceptabilityto face interaction in the classroom 5.Focussed on the learning value of face Teaching beliefs Acceptability: psychological acceptabilityto face interaction in the classroom 6.Strong core pedagogic beliefs, often Subject sub-disciplines, Acceptability: psychological acceptabilitydrawing on personal experiences of learning teaching beliefs 7.Unhappy about sharing materials on Internet usage, teacher role? Acceptability: functional acceptabilityweb or VLE 8.Association of web usage with surface Teaching beliefs Acceptability: functional acceptabilitylearning for students 9.Aiming to reproduce face to face Teaching beliefs / digital skill Accessibility: convenienceteaching paradigm online sets 10.Belief that they are lazier than those Digital skill set Affordability: psychological affordabilitywho use learning technologies, justifying thison time grounds 11.Often last minute preparation of Teaching beliefs, teacher Affordability: psychological affordabilityteaching role?
CONCLUDING COMMENTSIn addition to the initial factors from the literature, the teacher perspectiveof their role is proposed as a key determinant to technology adoption toenhance learning. In turn this is based on pedagogic beliefs.But how do we change such deep-seated values?The rapid growth and spread of digital technology has tended to paint someteachers into a corner – either they embrace change and see this as aprofessionally rewarding move, offering them learning and improvedachievements with students, or they may feel cut off from the growing moveto use VLEs as more than repositories for materials, and dig their heels in asenthusiasts try to “convert” them – a form of inoculation theory.Could we use the Sheth & Sisodia 4As model to demonstrate value in TEL toreluctant faculty – focussing on messages about Acceptability, Affordability,Accessiblity and Awareness?
REFERENCESGreener S. (2008) Identity crisis: Who is teaching whom online? European Flowers, S., Newton, B. & Paine, C. (1998) Creating a faculty intranet: A caseConference on E-Learning (ECEL) 2009. Agia Napa, Cyprus. study in change. Education and Training, 40, 340-346.Greener S. & Rospigliosi, A. (2009) Tread softly: Making secure steps Ford, J. D., Ford, L. W. & Damelio, A. (2008) Resistance to change: The rest oftowards wider adoption of pedagogically-focussed e-learning at brighton the story. Academy of Management Review, 33, 362-377.business school. In Blackey, H., Jefferies, A., Masterman, L. & Whalley,B. (Eds.) In dreams begins responsibility - choice, evidence and change. . Janis, I. (1983) Groupthink: Psychological studies of policy decisions and fiascoes.,University of Manchester, England, UK, The 16th Association for Boston, Houghton Mifflin.Learning Technology Conference (ALT-C 2009). Held 8-10 September2009. Liao, H.-L. & Lu, H.-P. (2008) The role of experience and innovation characteristics in the adoption and continued use of e-learning websites. Computers & Education, 51, 1405-1416.Greener S., Rospigliosi, A. & Shurville, S. (2007) Engaging from theinside: Reflections on the value of social cognitive theory for learning inonline discussions. International Conference on E-Learning (ICEL) 2007. Moore, G. (1991) Crossing the chasm: Marketing and selling technology products toNew York. mainstream customers, Oxford, Harper Business. Morris, H. & Rippin, A. (2002) E-learning in business and management: TheBovey, W. H. & Hede, A. (2001) Resistance to organisational change: The current state of play. BEST 2002 Supporting the Teacher, Challenging the Learner.role of defence mechanisms. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 16, 534- Edinburgh, BEST.548. Rogers, E. M. (1962) Diffusion of innovations (1st ed.). , New York, Free Press.Davis, F. D. (1989) Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use and useracceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13, 319-340. Sheth, J.N. & Sisodia, R.S. (2012) The 4As of Marketing: Creating Value for Customers, Companies and Society. Oxon.: Routledge.Drent, M. & Meelissen, M. (2008) Which factors obstruct or stimulateteacher educators to use ict innovatively? Computers & Education, 51, Trowler, P. (2009) Beyond epistemological essentialism: Academic tribes in the187-199. 21st century. IN Kreber, C. (Ed.) The university and its disciplines : Teaching and learning within and beyond disciplinary boundaries. London, Routledge.Eynon, R. (2009) Mapping young peoples use of new technologies forlearning. Implications for policy and practice. British Educational Van Deursen, A. J. A. M. & Van Dijk, J. A. G. M. (2009) Using the internet: SkillResearch Association Annual Conference (BERA 2009). Manchester, UK. related problems in users online behavior Interacting with Computers, in press. Waddell, D. & Sohal, A. S. (1998) Resistance: A constructive tool for change management. Management Decision, 36, 543-548.
Dr Sue GreenerS.L.Greener@ brighton.ac. ukBrighton Busin ess School, University ofBrighton, UK