Straub, E. T. (2009).
Understanding Technology Adoption: Theory and Future Directions for Informal
Learning. Review of Educational Research, 79(2), 625-649.
doi:10.3102/0034654308325896
This paper discusses a number of adoption theories (Roger's theory of innovation and diffusion, Concerns Based Adoption Model (CBAM) and Technology Acceptance Model (TAM)). This article is extremely useful in that it summarizes all of these models and theories and also presents criticism of each of them. But the one thing that I couldn't get out of my head as I was reading it was their definition of innovation. At the start of the article the author did a good job describing the terms that they would be using and the definition of innovations was based on something's newness, or its novelty. At my workplace there us much talk about innovation and we have been using a working definition that also contains a strand of "re-imagination" of the familiar, the tried and true. I wonder if we are doing that just to make the concept of innovation less intimidating, or if it can be more than just a novelty as so clearly described here.
Wilson, B., Sherry, L., Dobrovolny, J., Batty, M., &
Ryder, M. (2001). Adoption factors and processes. In H. H.
Adelsberger, B. Collis, & J. M. Pawlowski (Eds.), Handbook on
information technologies for education & training (pp. 293-307). New
York: Springer-Verlag.
This article continues to look at adoption theories. It provides some good summaries of the thinking of adoption theory including Roger's (1995) work looking at the users in the phases of adoption: innovators, early adopters, early majority, late majority and laggards. It looks like a bell curve with most of the people (about 70%) in the early and late majority part of the bell. Also, there is an interesting summary of the early 90s initiative by Apple: the Apple Classrooms of the Future Project. Through the lens of this project the authors look at the phases of innovation: entry phase, adoption phase, adaption phase, appropriation phase, and finally, invention phase. The conclusion of this paper emphasizes the value of hearing dissenting viewpoints in adoption processes. They note the challenges of these voices, particularly with technology adoption, as they often seem to be come from different world-views, not just different phases of a process. But, the authors suggest (and I agree), carefully listening to these voices will help shape the outcomes in a way that will have more lasting impact and ensure that technology "remains in service of the community, and not the reverse."
Hall, G. E. (2010). Technology's
Achilles heel: Achieving high-quality implementation. Journal of Research on
Technology in Education, 42(3), 231-253.
This article
(published in an ISTE publication, which always feels very reader-friendly to
me) discusses the steps needed to achieve implementation beyond the small scale
that can be seen with innovators and early adopters. The author describes an "implementation bridge"
that spans the chasm between old instructional strategies and technologically
enhanced ones. The three levels to the
bridge (which the author goes on to discuss in detail) are: Level of Use (LoU),
Stages of Concern (SoC) and Innovation Configurations (IC).
The important take
away from this paper is that adoption and improved student outcomes is not an
on/off dichotomy. In a complex school environment, in which there are many
instructors and leaders at different places on the bridge, improved outcomes
are likely, even if not everyone has gotten to the other side. What it leaves me wondering about is the
innovation configuration part—it is only addressed superficially here and seems
like a really important element of the bridge (illustrated as the foundation
here—is that on purpose?). Also, as
usual, I wonder if there could be some way to measure affective student
outcomes of adoption that are not test-based. Trying to measure the impact of
technology on the broader mission of a school seems to feel like an insurmountable challenge.
Nworie, J., & Haughton, N. (2008).
Good intentions and unanticipated effects: The unintended consequences of the
application of technology in teaching and learning environments. TechTrends:
Linking Research & Practice to Improve Learning, 52(5), 52-58. doi:
10.1007/s11528-008-0197-y
This paper is the
Debbie Downer to all of the change theory and talk of adoption models. It explores all the ways in which technology
in educational environments is not serving learning, and in many instances,
having not just a null impact, but a negative one. The authors insist that
their hope is not to just illuminate the downsides of technology integration
(but they list everything a student can do on a computer to be off task), but
to "draw attention to the need to constantly remember the effects of
change in any system[…]"
Hogarth, K., & Dawson, D. (2008). Implementing
e-learning in organisations: What e-learning research can learn from
instructional technology (IT) and organisational studies (OS) innovation
studies. International Journal on E-Learning, 7(1), 87-105.
This article explores some theories from disciplines outside of ETEC that can apply to research in e-learning (Classical Diffusion Theory, Configuration theory, Gallivan’s model for authority-based contingent adoption of innovations, and e-learning Unified Process. For me, the most valuable part of this paper was the statement by the authors about the limitations when applying theory about technological innovation to e-learning. They note that the type of outcomes that determine success might be different than in other technological systems. They cite this as an area that needs more flushing out.
