| Higher Education Course Migration from F2F to Online Instruction: Problems for Instructors |
||||
Reflection #4 Every so often, at least once each decade, a tome with new and prescient ideas drifts through the rafters of academia, capturing the imaginations of professors and students alike, energizing thought and elevating discourse both in the classroom and on the common, infusing intellectual activity with a renewed sense of urgency or purpose or both. At the very least, by virtue of some heretofore unrecognized design, things seem more managable. In the 60's it was Rostow's Stages of Economic Development, in the 70's it was T.S. Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, (in the 80's it was probably something by Joseph Campbell, in the 90's I know not what, as I was neither student nor instructor then), and of late it seems to be Everett M. Rogers' Diffusion of Innovations, at least among educational technolgists. And never mind that the first edition was published in 1962. Everyone cites the fourth addition (1995) like it was the original. (To be fair, Rogers did introduce significant additional concepts in his later additions.) Akin to Stages, and Structures, Diffusion of Innovations is a forthright, comprehensible treatment of social phenomena from which utilitarian insights emerge to provide organization and guidance. Also, it offers a neat and tidy nomenclature that is easy to remember. Also... it seems to work. Certainly it has struck a responsive chord among IT researchers who cite it again and again. Donovan (1999, in Tech-Source), Donovan (1998, in Educause), Garofoli and Woodell (2003, in Syllabus), Landis et al (2000 in Educause), Horgan (1998, in Tech-Source),and Fuller, et al, (2000, in ETS) utilize Rogers' terminology to classify faculty as innovators and early adaptors on the one hand, and everyone else on the other. There is also some use of "crtiical mass," as the term describing a point of no return in the implementation of technology-mediated instruction. So, for educational technologists concerned--in human terms--with the integration of technology into the process of learning and teaching, Rogers affords a classification system for the players in this drama, and a predictive description of the plot--from rising action to climax to denoument. Personally I hold -- as a matter of principle -- an aversion to what I consider to be faddish oversimplifications of reality. But in the case of Rogers' Diffusion I may make an exception. In my first reflection I observed that educational technology professionals may, by virtue of the jargon of their trade, have a communication problem with the lay public, that is, with anyone who is not an educational technologist. Diffusion of Innovations may offer some linguistic common ground for discourse with the IT-challenged. It probably would not be helpful to label faculty -- to their faces, at least -- as non-innovators, late adaptors, or worse--laggards! That would not be good communicaton. Actually, they do not need to be labeled at all. They need to be understood. More than that, they need to be described reasonably and fairly to administrators who make decisions about technology that directly affect all faculty. This is where I am willing to make an exception in favor of Rogers' nomenclature, because it is more than likely familiar to administrators, and thus provides that much needed basis for communication in a common language. Moreover, Rogers actually provides a strategy for action to facilitate technology adaptation that works on an interpersonal, rather than institutional, level. Rogers noted that, while innovators may be outsiders without respect of their peers--basically because they have no peers--early adaptors, on the other hand, are in positions of leadership to persuade the majority. Their influence is exercised on a one-on-one, peer-to-peer basis. They enjoy the confidence of those slow to adapt, and can lead their reluctant comrades by virtue of their example and patient mentoring. For an administrator, this is important stuff. So...for the duration, I will utilize Rogers as the model of choice in making sense of the issues addressed in this project. Perhaps, in the end, it will all make sense, if not to me, then perhaps to an occasional Diffusion enthusiast somewhere. Note: re-reading this weeks later, I realize I really didn't make much use of Diffusions after all. But I believe it does create a forum for discussion in which the architecture is familiar to all participants. dw |
||||