The document discusses challenges with implementing technology innovations in schools. It argues that simply adopting new technologies does not guarantee widespread, high-quality use. Three frameworks are useful for evaluating implementation: (1) levels of use, which describe how much teachers are using the technology; (2) innovation configurations, which assess how closely use aligns with intended best practices; and (3) stages of concern, which evaluate teachers' emotional responses to change. Strong leadership, understanding teachers' needs, and providing long-term support are also important for facilitating successful, sustainable implementation across these frameworks.

1. Technology‟s Achilles Heel:
Achieving High-Quality
Implementation
Gene E Hall (2010)
Presented by Juli Bryan
Leading change in the digital age

2. Focus Question
What tools are available to
support school leaders to
evaluate the extent of
implementation and facilitate
high-quality use of ICT?

3. “The hardest thing about
technology is not selling them on it.
It is getting them to use it!”
Phil H, district tech coordinator, as
cited in Hall, p.231

4. “developing a new form or process
does not guarantee that it will be
widely used. The continuing
challenge with technology
innovations is to move beyond their
early adoption by technology
enthusiasts and scale up to
widespread use.” (p.231)

5. “An exciting array of technology resources is
available to today‟s teachers and classrooms”
p.231
“However, how each is used and the extent of
use by teachers and students varies
dramatically.”
p.231
“There is also a gap between students‟ use of
technology outside the classroom…and what
they do in the classroom.” p.232
“…the Achilles heel is a lack of understanding
about what is involved in helping teachers to
fully implement and integrate their uses.”
p.232

6. “Teachers will vary in their interest in adopting
a new approach and in their competence to
use it…The extent and quality of use of new
approaches can be greatly enhanced when
there is understanding of how people change.”
p.232
“This paper begins with the assumption that
various technology innovations have been
developed and that there is interest in
achieving widespread and appropriate use.”
p.232

7. Evaluating an innovation‟s impact on outcomes
is complex.
“An important beginning point is accepting as
fact that different implementers are not likely to
use the technology exactly as the developer
envisioned.” p.232
The Diffusion of Innovation model (Rogers
2003) is one way of understanding change. This
model accepts that not everyone will adopt the
innovation at the same time, some people will
wait and see the results first. p.232
The Gold Standard model is another. This model
relies on making comparisons between two
groups – users and non-users. p.233

8. These are not useful models to use in schools
for various reasons:
• Who makes the decision to adopt the
innovation (teachers or administrators?) has
an impact on the rate and quality of the
adoption
• Becoming skilled in a new technology takes
time and usually training
• New infrastructure may be required
• Adoption of the new technology “is a
process, not an event”. Teachers are not non-
users one day and experts the next p.233
• Comparison and control groups are rarely
pure

9. “There is often insufficient appreciation
of how complex the implementation
process can be. This is the metaphorical
equivalent of asking implementers to
back up, take a running start, and
attempt to leap across the chasm from
past practice to full use of a new way”
p.234.

10. “The challenge of accomplishing
sustained and widespread integrated
uses of technology is the
metaphorical equivalent of providing
a bridge to facilitate teachers and
schools progressing across a
bridge.”
“Outcomes can be expected to vary
with how far across the bridge each
implementer has progressed. In
theory, those that are farther across
the bridge should have higher

12. The Concerns Based Adoption Model
(CBAM) (Hall & Hord, 2011) is useful
and realistic, recognising that change is
a process and that “becoming a
competent and confident innovation user
is a developmental phenomenon that
takes time” p. 234.

13. Level of Use
This is used to “describe the current state of each implementer” p.236
The LoU of each implementer should be measured, then related to
student outcomes. p.238

14. Innovation Configurations
How closely do the practices of each
implementer match the intended use?
“what they are doing and which components of
the innovation are being used can range from
exact replications of what the developer had in
mind to a practice that is unimaginable to the
developer” p. 239.
To avoid this:
• The developers must identify and provide
information about what a high-fidelity
implementation looks like
• Implementers must strive to put in place
these high-fidelity configurations

15. Innovation Configurations
In order to measure the extent to which
an innovation is being used as the
developer intended an Innovation
Configuration Map can be constructed.
This is a map that describes all the
possible variations of use “from ideal
configurations to efforts that the
developer judges to not be representative
of the innovation” p.240.

16. Innovation Configurations
“The variations of a component are displayed
as a rubric, but with several important
differences.”
• The ideal variation is labelled “a” and placed
on the left hand side, with variations to the
right representing decreasing fidelity
• The variations to the right don‟t just describe
less of “a”. They describe what has been
implemented. p.241 They represent
traditional practice. p.251
The IC Map becomes a summary document
based on classroom observations and
interviews.p.241

17. Innovation Configurations
IC Maps should be made available to
implementers and leaders – they give
clear descriptions of what high-fidelity
implementation should look like. p.242

18. Stages of Concern
“The emotional part of change often is neglected, with
resulting arousal of unnecessary resistance to innovation”
p.243

19. Stages of concern
Four areas:
• Impact
• affect on students
• concern with achieving outcomes
• Task
• Time
• Logistics
• Self
• Uncertainty about success
• Support
• Unconcerned
• Other things are of more concern

20. Stages of concern
Studies show that “if there is appropriate
change support and time (three to five
years), there will be progression across
the different SoC”
“However, there is no guarantee that this
will happen” p.244
Three ways to assess concerns:
• Informal conversation
• Open-ended concerns statement –
respondents write concerns in own
words

21. Responding to stages of concern
Be aware of how implementers are
feeling and respond appropriately.
If self concern is high, offer support and
provide information to reduce uncertainty.
Offer how-to-do-it tips when
implementers are on the bridge and task
concerns are high. p.244

22. Leadership makes a difference
Teachers do not work in isolation, they
are part of a bigger organisation.
“Factors within the school can
significantly affect implementation
success” p.245.
“Perhaps the most significant school-
level factor affecting teacher
implementation success is the
leadership role the principal plays”
p.245.

23. Change facilitator style
Three common styles:
• Initiators – strong set of ideas about what their
school should be like – a vision – and will support
innovations that they strongly believe in. Provide
information about outcomes to win them over.
• Managers – follow rules and control resources and
organise schedules to support. Provide clear budget
proposals and detailed timelines when approaching.
• Responders – listen to the concerns of their staff.
They want everyone to be happy and get along, will
try new things, but provide little support
p.246,247,250
“The general pattern to the findings is that teachers in
schools led by Initiators and Managers have the most
implementation success” p246. The highest success is

24. Implications
“As we know well, achieving change
success is always a challenge, and even
more so with technology” p. 247.
“Along with the usual issues and dynamics
of change processes, technology
innovations themselves keep evolving”
p.247.
“An additional use of the metaphor (of the
Implementation Bridge) is in thinking
about implementation bridges having
different lengths. Some implementation
methods are short, whereas others take

25. Implications
“The implementation game plan should be
in place for sufficient time so that most
implementers can attain at least level LoU
IVA: Routine Use. Otherwise,
sustainability is not likely to be achieved”
p.249.
“In many instances, adaption and
innovative uses are encouraged.
However, having more variation in
configuration becomes a problem when
there is a need to document results”
p.249.

26. Implications
“Simply saying, „You should use this
because it is good for students,‟ will not
win over those teachers with Self or Task
concerns”p.250.
“Reduction of high personal concerns
requires being empathetic and providing
information.
However, a change process will go much
more easily if personal concerns do not
get high in the first place” p.250.
Leaders need to anticipate this and
intervene early to support.

27. Implications
“Implementers with Responder CFS
leaders have less change success. In
most studies, implementers in schools led
by Initiators have the most success”
p.250.
Comparing higher to lower levels of
implementation makes sense, rather than
use compared to non-use. How far across
the bridge has each implementer moved?
If dichotomy is required, compare LoU IVA
and above with LoU <II. P.251

28. Implications
“The main causes of failure have not been
the technology innovations, but rather that
the failures have had more to do with
underappreciating the challenges of
implementation. The needs are so high for
schools to improve student outcomes and
the promises so powerful with integrated
uses of technology that the challenges of
implementation must be overcome.” p.252

29. Discussion Questions
Choose 1 or 2 questions to address and
discuss these in groups of 2 or 3.
1. Is the collection of the recommended
data achievable at the site you have in
mind for assignment 3? What are the
things that might make this difficult?
2. How might you gather some of this data
in the short term? Would you prioritise
or modify?
3. Consider the CFS of the leader at the
site you have in mind. What are the
implications of this in terms of

30. Conclusion
• Measuring the degree of
implementation is more reasonable
than other methods of measuring
change.
• The Implementation Bridge, especially
if you imagine different lengths, offers 3
useful diagnostic dimensions – LoU,
IC, SoC
• Change facilitator style is vitally
important.
• Never underestimate the challenges of