1. Diffusion Theories
INTC 5110
Fall 2010

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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.

5. Adoption Curve

6. FIGURE 1. How individual adoptions compose diffusion.
Straub E T REVIEW OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
2009;79:625-649
Copyright © by American Educational Research Association

7. 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

8. 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.

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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/

12. Determinist versus Instrumentalist
http://www2.gsu.edu/~wwwitr/docs/diffusion/

13. 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/

14. 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/

15. Determinist versus Instrumentalist
http://www2.gsu.edu/~wwwitr/docs/diffusion/

16. 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

17. 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

18. 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)

19. CBAM Components
 Stages of concern (SoC)
 Levels of use (LoU)
 Innovation configuration (IC).

22. TAP and UTAUT
Technology Acceptance Model
Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology

23. 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

24. 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

25. 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?

26. 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

27. 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.

28. 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.

29. 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.

30. 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