Educational Technology & Society 2(4) 1999

ISSN 1436-4522
Towards a Holistic Model for the Diffusion of Educational Technologies:
An Integrative Review of Educational Innovation Studies
Kim E. Dooley, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor, Texas A&M University
Office of Distance Education, The Agriculture Program
College Station, TX 77843-2116 USA
Tel: (1)-409-862-7180
Fax: (1)-409-862-3537
k-dooley@tamu.edu

ABSTRACT
There is escalating awareness that our educational systems are facing
inordinate difficulties in trying to meet the needs of a changing and
increasingly technological society. However, there are many
uncertainties regarding the benefits of technology and the changes that
the adoption of technology necessitates, such as demand for technical
support, pedagogical/instructional management issues, and teacher
professional development. This article presents a diverse set of literature
in the area of "adoption" of educational technology in schools. Can
innovation research help explain the adoption process in schools? What
happens to attempts at innovation within education? What are the
benefits of computers in schools and what are the impediments for their
use? How does the school context impact the change facilitation and
implementation process? To help answer these difficult questions, a
diffusion model will be presented to provide a snapshot of utilization of
computer technology and telecommunications. When contextual factors,
concerns about the innovation, and the individual stage of innovation-
decision are combined, what results is a holistic view of the overall
diffusion process.
Keywords: Diffusion, Innovation, Computer Technology,
Change in Schools

Introduction
Advanced technological development must occur in our schools and educational
institutions if we are to prepare students for a competitive global marketplace. The
educational reform movement is forcing changes in many traditional pedagogical
practices (American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1990; Dede, 1989).
Practitioners and government officials are recognizing the effectiveness of emerging
technologies in establishing new goals and implementing innovative pedagogical
methods.
"Technology has now changed or altered how people access, gather, analyze, present,
transmit, and simulate information. Todays technologies provide the tools,
applications, and processes that empower individuals of our information society" (See,
1994, p. 30). Many educators believe that computer-and-communications networking
can be employed productively to support and enable needed reform in education
(Hunter, 1993). New information technologies can give teachers and students more
power in the classroom (Clinton & Gore, 1993; See, 1994). Advances in scientific
developments, telecommunications, information processing, and dissemination
technologies are accelerating knowledge generation and acquisition (Hefzallah, 1990).
There is escalating awareness that our educational systems are facing inordinate
difficulties in trying to meet the needs in our changing and increasingly technological
society.
However, there are many uncertainties regarding the benefits of technology and the
changes that the adoption of technology necessitates, such as the demand for technical
support, pedagogical and instructional management issues, teacher professional
development, network infrastructure, and costs of all components (Hunter, 1993;
Office of Technology Assessment, 1989).
With accelerating knowledge and access to information, how can we embed ubiquitous
use of educational technology? How do we deal with the tensions between teachers,
pedagogy, technology, and institutional management? Does the literature teach us
lessons on the process of change, diffusion of innovations, and adoption of computers
in schools? Can this literature somehow be combined into a working diffusion model?
This article will present a diverse set of literature in the area of "adoption" of
educational technology in schools. The work of Everett M. Rogers (1995) provides a
framework for understanding of the diffusion process, the decision-making process
related to adoption, and the varying adoption categories within a social system.
"Concerns-theory" (Hall, Wallace, & Dossett, 1973) and the change facilitation process
in schools (Hall & Hord, 1987) help in addressing specific interventions that serve to
institutionalize an innovation. Also included is an overview of the literature in the areas
of computer technology and telecommunications in education, including the factors
that impede and embed educational innovations. A diffusion model based on a
theoretical base resulting from combining the literature will be described.

Can innovation research help explain the adoption process in schools?
What is an innovation? What is diffusion? Rogers defined an innovation as "an idea,
practice, or object that is perceived as new by an individual or other unit of adoption"
(1995, p. 11). Diffusion is "the process by which an innovation is communicated
through certain channels over time among the members of a social system" (Rogers,
1995, p. 10). The innovation-decision process is the "process through which an
individual (or other decision-making unit) passes from first knowledge of an
innovation to forming an attitude toward the innovation, to a decision to adopt or
reject, to implementation of the new idea, and to confirmation of this decision"
(Rogers, 1995, p. 20). This process consists of a series of actions and choices over time
with varying stages: 1) knowledge-exposure to the innovation's existence and function;
2) persuasion-formation of a favorable or unfavorable attitude toward the innovation;
3) decision-engagement in activities that lead to a choice to adopt or reject the
innovation; 4) implementation-putting the innovation into use; and 5) confirmation-
seeking reinforcement of an innovation-decision already made. There are also
influences on the process, such as the prior conditions, characteristics of the decision-
making unit, the perceived characteristics of the innovation, and communication
channels.
Diffusion research can be found in numerous fields of study, including anthropology,
sociology, education, public health, communication, marketing, and geography
(Rogers, 1983; Rogers & Shoemaker, 1971). In education, diffusion research largely
consisted of the work of Dr. Paul Mort and his students at Columbia Universitys
Teachers College until the early 1960s, when this tradition expanded rapidly (Deal,
Meyer & Scott, 1975; Rogers, 1983). The Columbia University diffusion studies found
that the best predictor of school innovativeness was educational cost per pupil. They
also found that a considerable time lag was required for the widespread adoption of
new educational ideas (Rogers, 1983).
Some scholars have emphasized the relationship between the characteristics of school
district structure or environment and the adoption of innovation. These studies revealed
that the school districts more likely to adopt innovations were those that were wealthy,
large, and had change-oriented leaders. Others have found organizational autonomy,
decentralized authority, staff professionalism, and features of organizational climate
such as openness, trust, and free communication to be correlates of innovative behavior
(Deal, Meyer & Scott, 1975).
Concerns theory emerged in the late 1960s from the pioneering research of Frances
Fuller. These early studies became the first indicators that the differing perceptions and
needs of teachers are important considerations when developing and delivering teacher
interventions. Rather than offering evaluative judgments about these differences,
emphasis should be upon developing and understanding the implications these
differences have for assisting teachers in professional growth (Hall & Hord, 1987).
The concept of "concerns" has been described as "the composite representation of the
feelings, preoccupation, thought, and consideration given to a particular issue or task.
Depending on the personal make-up, knowledge, and experience, each person
perceives and mentally contends with a given issue differently; thus there are different
kinds of concerns" (Hall & Hord, 1987, p. 59). Change is a process rather than an
event and should be examined by the various motivations, perceptions, attitudes, and
feelings experienced by individuals in relation to change (Hall et al., 1973). Change
entails an unfolding of experience and a gradual development of skill and
sophistication in use of an innovation. An individual's concerns can move in
developmental progression from those typical of non-users of an innovation to those
associated with fairly sophisticated use.
The theory and research of Hord and associates showed that there was a general pattern
to the intensity of the different stages of concern, and that changes in this pattern can
be linked to the change process as it unfolds (Hord, et al., 1987). At the beginning of a
change process, the typical "non-user" has concerns that are relatively high in
Awareness, Information, and Personal (self concerns). Non-users or low users are
more concerned about gaining information about the innovation and about how change
will affect them personally. As they begin to use the new program or innovation,
concerns become more intense in the area of Management (task concerns). As a
teacher becomes more experienced and skilled with an innovation, the tendency is for
concerns at the lower stages to decrease in intensity while those in higher stages such
as Consequence, Collaboration, and Refocusing become more intense (impact
concerns).
Concerns theory and research reveal that concerns change over time in a fairly
predictable, developmental manner (Hall & Hord, 1987; Hord et al., 1987). If we can
predict how concerns will change throughout the phases of the change process, we can
design in-service and other intervention activities to address those needs. For example,
when an individual is primarily concerned about self, that person does not have much
residual energy for concern about the tasks and consequences of use of innovations. In
addition, a school whose personnel show a larger percentage of impact concerns is
more likely to continue the use and further diffusion of that particular innovation.
Since the mid-1980s, microcomputers have invaded nearly all companies, schools, and
households. That represents a staggering rate of adoption. Why? According to Sid L.
Huff, a professor at Westerns Business School, the adoption and diffusion of
innovations throughout organizations have been studied quite thoroughly in many
different contexts and some powerful conceptual frameworks have emerged to help us
better understand the microcomputer invasion (Huff, 1987). Rogers (1983) five
characteristics of innovations (relative advantage, compatibility, complexity,
trialability, and observability), help to explain the computers rate of adoption.
Microcomputers have relative economic advantage, are becoming more and more user
friendly and compatible, becoming more light and portable, can be experimented with
privately, and come with tutorial programs and fancy screen graphics that gain the
attention of potential adopters (Huff, 1987).

What happens to attempts at innovation and restructuring within education?
According to Glenn Latham (1988), the typical innovation is born in a moment of great
interest, is soon implemented, and peaks in about a year and a half. This peak is then
followed by a decline in enthusiasm, and the innovation dies about four years from the
time that interest in it was first generated. Interest focuses on another innovative idea
and the process begins anew. Lathams works revealed common characteristics that
seem to explain why innovations fail: practitioners are disenchanted and disillusioned
because the innovation is more difficult than expected and it causes too much change
and takes too much time; innovation supporters depart; personnel lack training and
enthusiasm; funds run out; there is inadequate supervision; there is no accountability;
there is a "take-it-or-leave-it" attitude; and/or there are no consequences for termination
(Latham, 1988).
The past three decades have been characterized by extreme social, political, economic,
and technological changes; but schools have not changed their basic organizational
structure. Recognition that the curriculum and methodology of the past are unsuited for
todays world has prompted a call for a restructuring of education. We are currently in
the "third wave" era (Toffler, 1981), the post-industrial information age in which
change continuously takes place at all levels of society. Computers and multimedia
technology will form a major part of that restructuring process (Dyrli & Kinnaman,
1994d; Kurshan, 1991; Madian, 1990; Pearlman, 1991; Reif & Morse, 1992; Stinson,
1994).
Restructuring our schools involves deep and profound changes in the way the schools
function. Restructuring defines what goes on within classrooms--rethinking the way
teachers teach, the way students learn, and the way we assess them. Restructuring also
involves a change in the way schools are organized. Such reorganization requires
redefining the roles of teachers, administrators, parents, and students in the governance
and management of schools (Dyrli & Kinnaman, 1994b; Pearlman, 1991; Stinson,
1994). Computer technologies are changing the teachers role from information giver
to facilitator, counselor, advisor, guide, coach, co-learner, mentor, resource and
technology managers, and mediator to the students (Dyrli & Kinnaman, 1994b;
Kurshan, 1991; Lee & Reigeluth, 1994; Office of Technology Assessment, 1989;
Pearlman, 1991; Perkins, 1991; See, 1994). For schools to improve, teachers must
change. For teachers to change, there must be appropriate and promising practices and
procedures (innovations) that they develop or adopt and, when necessary, adapt (Hall
& Hord, 1987).

What are the benefits and impediments for computer use in schools?
Simplifying daily tasks, such as recordkeeping, may be the most immediate way to
involve teachers with technology. As teachers gain experience with technology, they
often discover ways it can help them carry out their varied duties better, faster, or more
effectively. Telecommunications can also transcend the walls of isolation that plague
the profession and allow teachers to converse with colleagues, the school office,
experts in the field, parents, and others outside the boundaries of the school. In
addition, teachers who are leaders in telecommunications and other technologies are
demonstrating how technology can be a vehicle for continuing formal and informal
professional development. While improving student learning is a central goal,
technology-using teachers express enthusiasm for additional instructional benefits of
technology that may or may not be reflected immediately in measures of student
learning: bringing a wider range of resources to the classroom, motivating learners,
providing new teaching tools, accommodating individual learning styles, and even
redefining the role of the teacher (Dyrli & Kinnaman, 1994a; Office of Technology
Assessment, 1995). According to Barron and Orwig (1993), the benefits of technology
in education include multisensory delivery, increased self-expression and active
learning, cooperative learning, communication skills, multicultural education, and
student motivation (p. 3).
But, the greatest single educational system barrier for an innovation is the system itself.
Teachers teach in the manner in which they themselves were taught. They will likely
continue to do so until significant changes in the system itself are effected. Other
system problems pertain to the inadequate support available to educators. School
district inservice training programs promote survival rather than change. There is
ample evidence that schools resist change both actively and passively, rendering many
constructive efforts for improvement useless (Hannafin, Dalton & Hooper, 1987).
"Adoption and diffusion efforts do not automatically ensure the best interest of
the system. Installation efforts are often little more than attempts to promote
painless infusion, to install without really changing, and to accommodate but
not to improve. These efforts are often misguided and have complicated rather
than enhanced computer use. Failure has often been assured by the methods
used to sell computers in schools. Teachers with limited computer knowledge,
and often conflicting priorities, influence how, when, or even if needed
innovations are to be implemented. Instead of promoting adoption and
diffusion, change is often stonewalled due to the territorial, personal, and
political threats posed by innovation" (Hannafin, et al., 1987, p. 7).
In an article by Jessica Siegel (1995), staff development was noted as imperative for
technology integration in the schools. Teachers must not only have training on the use
of the technology, but on how the innovation can become a part of their teaching
repertoire. "While nuts and bolts training on equipment is obviously necessary, most
experienced technology trainers argue that staff development has to move beyond this
rudimentary stage to have any real effect" (Siegel, 1995, pp. 44-45). Teachers training
teachers and working within interdisciplinary teams allows teachers to develop units
and teaming with technology as a tool, not the focus (Norton & Gonzales, 1998;
Siegel, 1995). "Teacher inservice has to model how to use the technology in the
teaching and learning process. The idea is not only to teach them how to use the
hardware and software, but how to integrate it seamlessly into the curriculum.
Otherwise, it doesnt work..."(Siegel, 1994, p. 34). Thus, hardware, software, and
professional development share an interdependent relationship (Dyrli & Kinnaman,
1994c; Office of Technology Assessment, 1995; Scheffler & Logan, 1999).
It was also discovered that "a longer timetable allows teachers time to absorb
information, try ideas out in their classrooms, and then come back for more discussion"
(Siegel, 1995, p. 45). Boyd (1992) pointed out that change frequently fails because
insufficient time was allocated. Fullan (1985) also suggested that emphasis be placed
on such resources as release time for planning and training. When staff development is
seen as an "add-on" to the school day, its understandable that workshops are offered
infrequently and in one-shot formats (Siegel, 1995). Typically, workshops and "show
and tell" demonstrations have been used to provide teachers with the basic "how to"
knowledge required to use computers in an instructional capacity (Dalton, 1989).
Professional development is more likely to be effective when it encourages teachers to
participate in their own renewal rather than supplying teachers with prepackaged
information or training (Office of Technology Assessment, 1995). Although we may
believe that teachers will automatically seek to learn about new technology and
instructional methods, the reality is that, when teachers are lacking confidence to
integrate an innovation into their instructional program, they will tend to ignore it.
School districts need to provide the standard workshops to help teachers gain the skills
and confidence necessary to use computers, but there must also be support for
venturesome methods (Corbett, Dawson & Firestone, 1984). "No risk, no gain could be
no truer than for the integration of computers in the schools. Benefits will be realized
in proportion to the innovativeness of our prospective solutions" (Hannafin et al.,
1987). Because adopters tend to have greater risk tendencies, the higher the risk-
proneness of a subject, the higher the innovations acceptance and adoption, and the
shorter the rate of diffusion of a typical innovation. Risk reduction can be
accomplished by reducing the uncertainty or by reducing the consequences (Dusick,
1998; Fidler & Johnson, 1984; Herbig & Kramer, 1994; Rogers & Shoemaker, 1971).
Another impediment to computer use in schools is information or innovation overload
and burnout (Herbig & Kramer, 1994; Latham, 1988; Sarason, 1982). Information
overload is the phenomenon of too much information overloading a consumer and
causing adverse judgmental decision-making. It is the users response to the increasing
pace of information, knowledge, and innovations that are appearing. Studies show that
effectiveness suffers when too much information is readily available (Herbig &
Kramer, 1994). Currently, much information is being presented in such a short time
that people are incapable of assimilating it all before the next batch appears,
contributing to overload. Overload usually occurs when the nature of the information is
uncertain, ambiguous, novel, complex, or intense causing society to be data rich and
information poor (Herbig & Kramer, 1994).
Other factors that influence an innovations success or failure are compatibility,
communication, and evaluation. Making sure the innovation is compatible with the
schools philosophy and mission and that the school board approves and is kept
informed is imperative (Latham, 1988). Communication plays a key role in
overcoming resistance to innovations and in the reduction of uncertainty (Fidler &
Johnson, 1984). When there is uncertainty, confusion, and morale problems in a
school, 99 percent of the time it is because of a lack of communication (Office of
Technology Assessment, 1995).
Often there is no time for or mention of an evaluative component. Teachers and
principals continue to try new things, without allowing for time to assess the
effectiveness. Kamala Anandam and Terence Kelly (1981) discussed the three Es --
extensiveness, effectiveness, and endurance as three evaluation phases in an
innovation-diffusion process as it relates to technology in education. Extensiveness
refers to the widespread degree of usage of technology in education; effectiveness
refers to improvement in human satisfaction and in student motivation, retention, and
learning; and endurance refers to the long-lasting continuation of an innovation despite
roadblocks that appear (Anandam & Kelly, 1981).

How does the school context impact the change facilitation and implementation
process?
Every school has its own unique context or culture. Many times innovations are not put
into practice because they conflict with deeply held internal images of how the world
works, images that limit persons to familiar ways of thinking and acting (Senge, 1990).
Frequently, the individuals conception of the system serves as a basis for maintaining
the status quo and opposing change (Sarason, 1982). Cuban (1988) states that most
reforms fail because of flawed implementation. Teachers and administrators see
minimal gains and much loss in changes that are proposed. The difficulty associated
with facilitating change in peoples values, attitudes, and behavior is "grossly
underplayed and often ignored" (Waugh & Punch, 1987, p. 244). The result is the
likelihood that innovations will not be well received by teachers due to conflict with
the firmly entrenched traditions.
Purkey and Smith (1983) proposed that change in schools means changing attitudes,
norms, beliefs, and values associated with the school culture. Researchers have found
particular cultural norms that can facilitate school improvement. Norms such as
introspection, collegiality, and a shared sense of purpose or vision combine to create a
culture that supports innovation (Straessens, 1991). Teachers who had adopted more
progressive teaching practices over time felt that computers helped them change, but
they did not acknowledge computers as the catalyst for change; instead, they cited
reflection upon experience, classes taken, and the context or culture of the school
(Dexter, Anderson & Becker, 1999). For teachers to implement the use of educational
technology in a constructivist manner, they must have opportunities to construct
pedagogical knowledge in a supportive climate (Dexter, Anderson & Becker, 1999;
Parr, 1999).
In the seventies, Havelock (1971) introduced the idea of "linkers," or the human
interface, to connect new information and practice with those who could use them.
Lipham (1977) suggested that the school administrator could serve as the linking agent.
"A key ingredient in facilitating diffusion of any innovation is the presence of a
credible change agent. The most significant role of the change agent is to act as an
interface between the adopters of the innovation and those with a vested interest in
seeing the change occur: the stakeholders" (Dalton, 1989, p. 24). Successful change
agents must share communality with the client group. Understanding the clients needs
and wants, as well as the specific skills necessary to facilitate the particular change are
critical attributes (Dalton, 1989).
Usually, there is no single entity responsible for planning and managing change,
although, by default, the principal often assumes the task. "If educational programs for
students are to improve, principals must take the lead in providing teachers with the
instructional leadership they need and are entitled to as they strive to improve their
practices" (Hall & Hord, 1987, p. 43). The principal has the primary role in
encouraging or discouraging individual teachers to try out and report upon their new
ideas, thus creating a staff atmosphere that supports experimentation and sharing
(Chesler, Schmuck & Lippitt, 1975). Encouraging informal meetings for the discussion
of teaching techniques and improving teacher communication by providing
opportunities for teachers to observe other classroom procedures helps to demonstrate
active support and concern. This type of environment allows the principal to remain
sensitive to the needs of the teachers and the effectiveness of promoting creativity and
innovativeness (Chesler, et al., 1975).
Within the school context, administrators who share the vision, support venturesome
methods, and act as a linking (change) agent help facilitate a change in traditions,
beliefs and attitudes regarding innovations. But ultimately, its the teachers who
implement the innovation.

Putting it all together: A model for diffusion
Reflecting upon the innovation research, how can we "put it all together" to determine
the diffusion of computer technology in schools? Perhaps a place to start is by
determining where school personnel are in the innovation-decision process and what
their concerns are (self, task, or impact) with regard to technology in the school. Only
with this information can we begin to design appropriate professional development
programs and an environment where impediments are minimized.
School change is extremely complex. There are contextual factors impacting the
change facilitation process: the role of principals and others who help teachers
integrate technology in the school. There are contextual factors impacting the change
implementation process: the role of teachers at varying levels of technical competence.
There are concerns (self, task and impact) about the innovation and the stage where the
individual is in the innovation-decision process (knowledge, persuasion, decision,
implementation, and confirmation). Is there a way to compile all these factors in order
to visualize whats happening within a school?
To integrate information about individual diffusion and concerns, a model was
developed and tested in several schools. This model considers the contextual factors,
the stages in the decision-making process from the perspective(s) of the principal,
internal trainer(s), external trainer(s), and high, middle and low using teachers, and a
pie graph representation of the percentage of concerns that were self, task, and impact.
This model provides a snapshot of diffusion of computer technology and
telecommunications (Dooley, 1995).

Selection of Schools and Respondents
In the initial study, three schools were selected based upon equivalent funding for the
purchase of technology and professional development and that were expected to
demonstrate similar diffusion. These schools housed 6th-8th grade students and
received funding because of their interest in school restructuring and their presumed
ability to be innovative. All three schools were located in east-central Texas within 100
miles of each other. Two were classified as urban, while the third was rural.
Selection of individual respondents was based upon an interview with the school
principals. The principals mentioned key people (site coordinators, technology trainers,
learning specialists, external consultants, etc.) who were impacting the diffusion of
technology. It was at this point that the researcher realized the importance of other
change facilitators on the campuses and also contacted these individuals to be
respondents for the study. Among them were technology site coordinators on the
campuses and external training consultants.
At the conclusion of the initial interviews, the principals were asked to identify high,
middle, and low-using computer technology teachers. This nonprobability sampling
technique, the snowball sample (Babbie, 1989), meant that each person interviewed
may be asked to suggest additional people for the study. During the interviews of
teachers, additional high, middle, and low users were identified until the sample
became redundant because of names being repeated.
There were 39 interviews (Table 1). All of the respondents and schools were coded to
ensure confidentiality by using a one or two letter designation and number
corresponding to the type of position in the school and the consecutive order of the
interview. For example, when designating comments of the eighth person interviewed,
who was a middle-using teacher, the researcher would use the code "M8."
Type
Code
Principal Internal
Trainer
External
Trainer
Teachers Total

(P) (IT) (ET) (H) (M) (L)

School 1 1 2 1 4 3 3 14
School 2 1 2 1 4 3 2 13
School 3 1 1 1 4 3 2 12
Note. The teachers were divided into High (H), Middle (M), and Low (L) Users.
Table 1. Respondent Selection by School

Data-Gathering Procedures
For this study, the researcher used a variety of qualitative methods in order to gain a
valid glimpse of the multiple realities associated with the school context. These
methods helped to ensure truth value, applicability, consistency, and neutrality
(Erlandson, Harris, Skipper & Allen, 1993, pp. 133-161). Interviews served as the
primary data collection instrument. The interviews were open-ended, but based upon
an interview protocol designed to determine "concerns" and the stage in the
innovation-decision process. Audiotaping supplemented field notes to insure accuracy.

Data Analysis
As discussed in Lincoln and Guba (1985), the constant comparative method was used
for the data analysis. The transcriptions were analyzed using A Manual for Assessing
Open-Ended Statements of Concern About an Innovation (Newlove & Hall, 1976) to
give a glimpse of the individual concerns and innovation-decision process. As concerns
were identified in the interview transcriptions, tally marks were made to determine
percentages of concerns (self, task, and impact).
The comparative case studies and data analysis allowed the researcher to place
individuals within the Rogers (1983) innovation-decision stages, to determine the
concerns from the Concern-Based Adoption Model (1973), and to characterize each
schools unique contexts, such as the environmental factors that impacted the rate of
diffusion. A diffusion model emerged to help "make meaning" out of the multiple data
sources.
The model forms a circle to represent the overall school context, with the outer edge of
the circle indicating high diffusion, and the center representing low diffusion. The
model includes spokes for the varying perspectives in order to visualize the
individuals progression through Rogers stages of diffusion. The pie graphs represent
the percentages of concerns that are impact, task, and self.
An example of the diffusion model for one school is included to serve as a sample
(Figure 1). Notice the relationship between the level of computer competence and
percentage of concerns/innovation-decision stage. Low users of technology had a
higher percentage of self concerns, middle users shifted more to task or management
concerns, and high users were more concerned about the impact the innovation had on
their students or other teachers. In particular, school personnel indicated that further
diffusion of computer technology and telecommunications depended on the willingness
of the "change facilitators" to understand and collaborate with the teachers in
developing training and in-service programs to address their needs. Also, the principals
and technology trainers in the schools tended to range between implementation and
confirmation on Rogers innovation-decision model. Higher users were also in this
range, with middle users closer to the decision stage and low users often only at the
knowledge stage.

Figure 1. Model of Diffusion
As one would expect, low users are closer to the center of the circle and high users at
the edge. A dynamic continuum results, with added training and support encouraging
outward movement, or continued frustrations causing individuals to discontinue use or
never to decide to adopt. In the model, there is a relationship between the individuals
location on the innovation-decision spoke and the individuals percentage of concerns.
As internal or external factors enter, they become a part of the school context. The
context can be further divided because most schools operate under the leadership of the
principal and other support personnel, where change is generally facilitated. These are
the people who write grants, order equipment, train teachers, and keep equipment up
and running. Although the diffusion of computer technology and telecommunications
is dependent on the change facilitators vision and leadership, it is truly the teachers
who impact the use of technology in the classroom. The change implementation or
acceptance of change therefore occurs with the instructional personnel or teachers.

Summary
Now I ask youdoes innovation research help us understand the adoption process in
schools? Are there benefits (in time savings, teaching tools and learning strategies) to
using computers in schools? Can we predict and even prevent the impediments to the
adoption of computer technology in schools? Can we change schools, including the
role of teachers, administrators, and students? I hope you answered "yes" to at least
three of these questions. We have made great strides in recent years in the diffusion of
computers as instructional/learning tools. But, the biggest challenge remains. The
institution we call "school" must change truly to embed ubiquitous educational
technology. Yet, schools have not changed for centuries. Will the next century be the
one?
I believe it will take a holistic, systemic approach, the infusion of all these factors
working together to facilitate and implement change. This diffusion model attempts a
holistic view to aid institutions with the change process. "From a concerns-based point
of view, it is insufficient simply to assess teachers and other clients concerns and use
of a particular program or process; it is the responsibility of the concerns-based change
facilitator to do something on the basis of the assessment--to intervene" (Hall &
Hord, 1987, p. 142). Will you be that change facilitator?

References
American Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS] (1990).
Science for all Americans, New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Anadam, K. & Kelly, J. T. (1981). Evaluating the use of technology in
education. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 10 (1), 21-31.
Babbie, E. (1989). The practice of social research, Belmont, CA: Wadsworth
Publishing Company.
Barron, A. E. & Orwig, G. W. (1993). New technologies for education,
Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited.
Boyd, V. (1992). School context: Bridge or barrier for change, Austin, TX:
Southwest Educational Development Laboratory.
Chesler, M., Schmuck, R. A. & Lippitt, R. (1975). The principals role in
facilitating innovation. In J. V. Baldridge & T. E. Deal (Eds.) Managing
Change in Educational Organizations, Berkeley, CA: McCutchan Publishing
Corporation, 321-327.
Clinton, W. J. & Gore, A. (1993). Technology for Americas economic growth,
a new direction to build economic strength, February, Washington, DC: The
White House.
Corbett, H. D., Dawson, J. & Firestone, W. (1984). School context and school
change: Implications for effective planning, Philadelphia, PA: Research for
Better Schools.
Cuban, L. (1988). A fundamental puzzle of school reform. Phi Delta Kappan,
69 (5), 341-344.
Dalton, D. W. (1989). Computers in the schools: A diffusion/adoption
perspective. Educational Technology, 29 (11), 20-27.
Deal, T. E., Meyer, J. W. & Scott, W. R. (1975). Organizational influences on
educational innovation. In J. V. Baldridge & T. E. Deal (Eds.) Managing
Change in Educational Organizations, Berkeley, CA: McCutchan Publishing
Corporation, 109-132.
Dede, C. (1989). The evolution of distance learning: Technology-mediated
interactive learning, Office of Technology Assessment, Washington, DC: U.S.
Government Printing Office.
Dexter, S. L., Anderson, R. E. & Becker, H. J (1999). Teachers views of
computers as catalysts for changes in their teaching practice. Journal of
Research on Computing in Education, 31 (3), 221-239.
Dooley, K. E. (1995). The diffusion of computer technology and
telecommunications: A comparative case study of middle schools in the Texas
Education Collaborative. Unpublished dissertation, College Station, TX: Texas
A&M University.
Dusick, D. M. (1998). What social cognitive factors influence faculty members
use of computers for teaching? A literature review. Journal of Research on
Computing in Education, 31 (2), 123-137.
Dyrli, O. E. & Kinnaman, D. E. (1994a). Gaining access to technology: First
step in making a difference for your students. Technology & Learning, 14 (4),
16-20, 48, 50.
Dyrli, O. E. & Kinnaman, D. E. (1994b). Integrating technology into your
classroom curriculum. Technology & Learning, 14 (5), 38-42, 44.
Dyrli, O. E. & Kinnaman, D. E. (1994c). Moving from successful classrooms to
successful schools. Technology & Learning, 14 (6), 46-48, 50, 52, 54.
Dyrli, O. E. & Kinnaman, D. E. (1994d). Preparing for the integration of
emerging technologies. Technology & Learning, 14 (8), 92, 94, 96, 98, 100.
Erlandson, D. A., Harris, E. L., Skipper, B. L. & Allen, S. D. (1993). Doing
naturalistic inquiry, Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Fidler, L. A. & Johnson, J. D. (1984). Communication and innovation
implementation. Academy of Management Review, 9 (4), 704-711.
Fullan, M. G. (1985). Change processes and strategies at the local level. The
Elementary School Journal, 85 (3), 391-422.
Hall, G. E. & Hord, S. M. (1987). Change in schools, Albany, NY: State
University of New York Press.
Hall, G. E., Wallace, R. C., & Dossett, W. A. (1973). A developmental
conceptualization of the adoption process within educational institutions,
Austin, TX: Research and Development Center for Teacher Education, The
University of Texas.
Hannafin, M. J., Dalton, D. W. & Hooper, S. R. (1987). Computers in
education. In E. E. Miller & M. L. Mosley (Eds.) Educational media and
technology yearbook, Littleton, CO: Libraries Unlimited, 5-20.
Havelock, R. G. (1971). Planning for innovation through dissemination and
utilization of knowledge, Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan, Institute for
Social Research.
Hefzallah, I. M. (1990). The educated person. In I. M. Hefzallah (Ed.) The new
learning and telecommunications technologies: Their potential applications in
education, Springfield, IL: Charles Thomas, 5-23.
Herbig, P. A. & Kramer, H. (1994). The effect of information overload on the
innovation choice process. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 11 (2), 45-54.
Huff, S. L. (1987). Computing as innovation. Business Quarterly, Summer, 7-9.
Hunter, B. (1993). NSFs networked testbeds inform innovation in science
education. T.H.E. Journal, 21 (3), 96-99.
Kurshan, B. (1991). Creating the global classroom for the 21st century.
Educational Technology, 31 (4), 47-50.
Latham, G. (1988). The birth and death cycles of educational innovations.
Principal, 68 (1), 41-43.
Lee, I. & Reigeluth, C. M. (1994). Empowering teachers for new roles in a new
educational system. Educational Technology, 34 (1), 61-72.
Lincoln, Y. S. & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry, Newbury Park, CA:
Sage.
Lipham, J. M. (1977). The administrators role in educational linkage. In N.
Nash & J. Culbertson (Eds.) Linking processes in educational improvement:
Concepts and application, Columbus, OH: University Council for Educational
Administration, 149-188.
Madian, J. (1990). In the midst of restructuring, our only hope is a
knowledgeable teacher. Electronic Learning, 9 (6), 8-9.
Newlove, B. W. & Hall, G. E. (1976). A manual for assessing open-ended
statements of concern about an innovation, Austin: Research and Development
Center for Teacher Education, The University of Texas. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED 144207).
Norton, P. & Gonzales, C. (1998). Regional educational technology assistance
initiative - Phase II: Evaluating a model for statewide professional
development. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 31 (1), 25-48.
Office of Technology Assessment (1989). Linking for learning: A new course
for education, (OTA Publication No. SET-430), Washington, DC: U.S.
Government Printing Office.
Office of Technology Assessment (1995). Teachers and technology: Making
the connection, (OTA Publication No. 052-003-01409-2), Pittsburg, PA:
Superintendent of Documents.
Parr, J. M. (1999). Extending educational computing: A case of extensive
teacher development and support. Journal of Research on Computing in
Education, 31 (3), 280-291.
Pearlman, R. (1991). Restructuring with technology: A tour of schools where
its happening. Technology & Learning, 11 (4), 30-34, 36.
Perkins, D. N. (1991). Technology meets constructivism: Do they make a
marriage? Educational Technology, 31 (5), 18-23.
Purkey, S. C. & Smith, M. S. (1983). Effective schools: A review. The
Elementary School Journal, 83 (4), 427-452.
Reif, R. J. & Morse, G. M. (1992). Restructuring the science classroom. T.H.E.
Journal, 20 (9), 69-72.
Rogers, E. M. & Shoemaker, F. F. (1971). Communication of Innovations: A
cross-cultural approach, New York: The Free Press.
Rogers, E. M. (1983). Diffusion of innovations, New York, NY: The Free Press.
Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusion of innovations, New York, NY: The Free Press.
Sarason, S. B. (1990). The predictable failure of educational reform Can we
change course before its too late? San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Scheffler, F. L. & Logan, J. P. (1999). Computer technology in schools: What
teachers should know and be able to do. Journal of Research on Computing in
Education, 31 (3), 305-322.
See, J. (1994). Technology and outcome-based education: Connections in
concept and practice. The Computing Teacher, 17 (3), 30-31.
Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning
organization, New York: Doubleday/ Currency.
Siegel, J. (1994). Teach your teachers well. Electronic Learning, 13 (7), 34.
Siegel, J. (1995). The state of teacher training. Electronic Learning, 14 (8), 43-
45, 48-53.
Staessens, K. (1991). The professional culture of innovating primary schools:
Nine case studies. A paper presented at the annual meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, April 3-7, 1991, Chicago.
Stinson, J. (1994). Reinventing high school. Electronic Learning, 13 (4), 20-25.
Toffler, A. (1981). The third wave, New York, NY: Bantam Books.
Waugh, R. G. & Punch, K. F. (1987). Teacher receptivity to systemwide
change in the implementation stage. Review of Educational Research, 57 (3),
237-254.