Rogers Diffusion of Innovation

WORK IN PROGRESS---QUICKTIME VIDEO COMING SOON!!

I’d like to share with you a technology innovation that was recently introduced in our school district and its relationship with Rogers Diffusion of Innovation.

To give you some background knowledge--Our district recently received two grants that made it possible for us to implement a 1:1 initiative for grades 7-12. Cycle 1 of the grant involved grades 8 and 9. This impacted our middle school campus for grade 8 and our high school campus for grade 9. Cycle 2 provided seed money for us to fund grades 7 at the middle school and grades 10-12 at the high school. I’d like to relate to you how each campus responded to infusion of laptops into the classroom. Since I’ve lived this from the middle school side, I can share with you what occurred on our campus. From the high school side, I will report on information I received from the grant coordinator, grant director and our outside evaluator.

Relative advantage states that in people will more readily change if they see an advantage over changing the status quo.

At our middle school, most of the staff seemed willing to try something new. They appeared to see the advantages a laptop provided over the “old” way of doing business. It appeared that teachers and administrators at the high school were happy with the ways things were and thus found little reason to change.

Compatibility refers to the innovations' reconcilability with existing values, needs and beliefs of the users. On the middle school campus, we were struggling with TAKS scores. We knew there was a need for change. Data gleaned from schools that had previously implemented a 1:1 initiative gave us hope that we could reach more students by integration technology within our curriculum. On the high school side, the majority of teachers and the administration did not see a need to use the laptops. Their belief was that the children were only using them for playing games. Some teachers even forbad students from using them to take notes in class.

Exactly how hard is it to use this machine and integrate within the existing curriculum? That’s what known as complexity. A specific amount of the grant funding was stipulated for training purposes. Both campuses were given the same type of training by certified Apple trainers. The core group of middle and high school teachers in cycle 1 were given 4 days of extensive training on how to use the machine.

Year 1 in which only 8th and 9th grader had MacBooks was our “try it out” year. Teachers on both campuses were told to give it a whirl and use the machines in the classes with the kiddos. I think one factor in this trialability year was that of walk-through evaluations. It seemed that middle school teachers were rewarded for most efforts while high school instructors were strongly encouraged to use the existing curriculum and given very strict parameters. Since most of the existing curriculum didn’t call for the use of computers, the high school teachers were unwilling to step outside of the box and find ways to integrate the laptops.

From the beginning, teachers at the middle school saw improvement. Time on task and engagement were two of the first noted improvements. Test results improved dramatically at the middle school. The middle school went from being close to unacceptable to almost recognized. At the high school level, gains were made. Scores came from bottom level to being in the low acceptable range. However, since computers rarely used in instruction during year one, it’s hard to attribute the score increase to the integration of technology.

Our book gives the definition that resistance is “conduct that serves to maintain the status quo in the face of pressure to alter the status quo”. In more simple terms, resistance the action of opposing something that you disapprove or disagree with. It was apparent that there was little resistance to the 1:1 implementation at the middle school while the high school resisted the change.

The factors in resistance are organizational structure, communication channels and worker attitudes.

I include these points within this presentation because I believe that these three factors made the difference in year 1 of our 1:1 initiative. Conditions at the middle school during year one were stable. Administrators were in place that were trusted by faculty and staff. Communication channels were open on the campus and district level and worker attitudes were good.

At the high school, the campus administration was at odds with district administration over many issues--least of which was the 1:1 initiative. The communication flow from campus administrators to teachers and staff was non-existent or negative, resulting in poor attitudes among the faculty. Many teachers were threatening to quit or did quit at the end of year 1.

Thankfully for our small school district, this story does have a happy ending. At the end of year one, district administrators made a change in the campus administration at the high school. The new administration began to repair some of the damage done during the first year of the 1:1. Due largely to the success of the middle school implementation coupled with improving scores at the high school, our district was awarded cycle 2 of the Vision 2020 grant. Due to increased pressure on the high school from district administration and due to the fact that the entire campus was at that point 1:1, the staff had little choice other than to get on board with the program.

I think tale is a revealing example of how two campuses, both within the same district, receiving the same training and hardware, responded differently to change.