diffusion
TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: Diffusion](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062513/55658e42d8b42a093a8b46ae/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Diffusion Theories
INTC 5110
Fall 2010
![Page 2: Diffusion](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062513/55658e42d8b42a093a8b46ae/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
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
![Page 3: Diffusion](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062513/55658e42d8b42a093a8b46ae/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
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
![Page 4: Diffusion](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062513/55658e42d8b42a093a8b46ae/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
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.
![Page 5: Diffusion](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062513/55658e42d8b42a093a8b46ae/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Adoption Curve
![Page 6: Diffusion](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062513/55658e42d8b42a093a8b46ae/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
FIGURE 1. How individual adoptions compose diffusion.
Straub E T REVIEW OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH 2009;79:625-649
Copyright © by American Educational Research Association
![Page 7: Diffusion](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062513/55658e42d8b42a093a8b46ae/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
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
![Page 8: Diffusion](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062513/55658e42d8b42a093a8b46ae/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
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.
![Page 9: Diffusion](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062513/55658e42d8b42a093a8b46ae/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
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
![Page 10: Diffusion](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062513/55658e42d8b42a093a8b46ae/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
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
![Page 11: Diffusion](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062513/55658e42d8b42a093a8b46ae/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
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/
![Page 12: Diffusion](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062513/55658e42d8b42a093a8b46ae/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Determinist versus Instrumentalist
http://www2.gsu.edu/~wwwitr/docs/diffusion/
![Page 13: Diffusion](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062513/55658e42d8b42a093a8b46ae/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
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/
![Page 14: Diffusion](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062513/55658e42d8b42a093a8b46ae/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
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/
![Page 15: Diffusion](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062513/55658e42d8b42a093a8b46ae/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Determinist versus Instrumentalist
http://www2.gsu.edu/~wwwitr/docs/diffusion/
![Page 16: Diffusion](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062513/55658e42d8b42a093a8b46ae/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
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
![Page 17: Diffusion](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062513/55658e42d8b42a093a8b46ae/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
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
![Page 18: Diffusion](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062513/55658e42d8b42a093a8b46ae/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
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)
![Page 19: Diffusion](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062513/55658e42d8b42a093a8b46ae/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
CBAM Components
Stages of concern (SoC) Levels of use (LoU) Innovation configuration (IC).
![Page 20: Diffusion](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062513/55658e42d8b42a093a8b46ae/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
![Page 21: Diffusion](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062513/55658e42d8b42a093a8b46ae/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
![Page 22: Diffusion](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062513/55658e42d8b42a093a8b46ae/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
TAP and UTAUT
Technology Acceptance Model
Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology
![Page 23: Diffusion](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062513/55658e42d8b42a093a8b46ae/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
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
![Page 24: Diffusion](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062513/55658e42d8b42a093a8b46ae/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
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
![Page 25: Diffusion](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062513/55658e42d8b42a093a8b46ae/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
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?
![Page 26: Diffusion](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062513/55658e42d8b42a093a8b46ae/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
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
![Page 27: Diffusion](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062513/55658e42d8b42a093a8b46ae/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
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.
![Page 28: Diffusion](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062513/55658e42d8b42a093a8b46ae/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
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.
![Page 29: Diffusion](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062513/55658e42d8b42a093a8b46ae/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
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.
![Page 30: Diffusion](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062513/55658e42d8b42a093a8b46ae/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
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