Horizon Report Discussion

After reading through the 2017 edition of the Horizon Report for K-12 education, I determined
that one of the technologies my school system would be most likely to adopt, if funding was not
an issue, would be the STEM tool called Sphero. Sphero helps teach students coding skills and
offers many online activities, apps, programmable robots, and kits for technology building. My
school district has a high focus on STEM and has partnered with engineering divisions within
the Air Force Base located in our town to create programs and training for students interested
in those fields. Currently, there are LEGO League robotics teams featured in most schools
where students learn to build and program robots to perform certain tasks. The teams take
their robots to competitions against other schools to determine who can program their robots
best to execute complex tasks smoothly and efficiently. Students on the robotics teams also get
the chance to work with Air Force Base Engineers to learn about the technology used in military
operations and some get the chance to shadow these mentors or go on field trips to experience
these technology labs firsthand. I believe my school district would be enthusiastic to adopt
Sphero technologies because they would be upgrading much of the outdated tools the schools
have. The robots the students currently use can do only rudimentary skills and lack the
functionality and possibilities that Sphero’s newer, more innovative robots possess.
Additionally, with Sphero’s other offerings like the online activities, apps, and tools for
educators, implementation of the Sphero technology would go beyond the robot itself and
expand into a cohesive technological program that is much closer to a 21 st century standard.
When placing Sphero’s technology under the critical lens of Rogers’ Diffusion of Innovation
Variables Determining Rate of Adoption, it seems to pass each of the five attributes with flying
colors. The relative advantage of Sphero is clear: it would replace the dated, more
technologically limited robots and curriculum. The compatibility of Sphero is also quite clear.
The district places high importance on STEM education and works in collaboration with the
engineering divisions of the Air Force. Sphero’s technologies would meet adopters needs by
enhancing the STEM education program and taking innovation training to a new level. The
complexity of Sphero is enough that it would challenge students to use greater critical thinking
skills, but also comes with a guide for educators and an online support system which would
make integration into the district much easier. Sphero certainly has an element of trialability
since robots and resources can be purchased singularly. The district could conduct a trial of
Sphero by purchasing the technology for one school in the district or letting different schools
conduct trials of different resources. It does not require a long-term commitment for all schools
within the district. Lastly, the observability of Sphero would come into play when students
compete in robotics competitions, attend field trips or expos related to STEM, and school
robotics teams hold showcases for the school and community populations.

On the contrary, I believe the technology mentioned within the 2017 Horizon Report that my
district would be least likely to adopt soon would be Google Cardboard. Upon a surface
examination of my district’s technology initiatives, that would seem to be a contrary prediction
to most people since my district has recently started adopting Google Apps for Education into
our daily routines. However, I believe Google Cardboard will be a technology that my district
would be hesitant to adopt because I believe they would have a much harder time seeing the
benefit of it than other available technologies. For example, Google Cardboard is marketed
more for virtual reality field trips within social studies curriculum, and there is not a heavy
priority placed on up-and-coming technologies for social studies in my district. It does have
great uses for science curriculum as well, but I do not believe the county would view these as
great enough to warrant a priority spot for technology. Additionally, Google Cardboard is a very
affordable technology available to educators and the public. The county has been known to
encourage teachers who wanted technologies like this to seek out grants and other sources of
funding to bring them into their classrooms. Therefore, I think they’d be more willing to bring
the technology into the system through individual teacher efforts rather than adoption among
the technology initiatives across the county. As far as Rogers’ Diffusion of Innovation framework
attributes are concerned, I think the district would have a hard time justifying several attributes
for Google Cardboard. For instance, there is no relative advantage; it would not be taking the
place of another technology. While its affiliation with Google Apps for Education would be
compatible with the county’s initiatives, the curricular focuses of the county are not compatible
with the majority of the purposes of Google Cardboard. While the technology itself has a low
complexity level, there are many teachers still learning the other Google Apps that have been
implemented, and the county may worry that adopting another may overwhelm or frustrate
teachers. There is no known observability with Google Cardboard since the technology lets the
student use the Cardboard “viewfinder” to experience a location in virtual reality. Observing a
student use the Cardboard “viewfinder” would be the extent of observability. Lastly, Google
Cardboard does have the advantage of trialability. It can be purchased in large or small
amounts so it could be tried in a single classroom, a single school, or across the whole district.
This means that there is really only one solid variable that determines the rate of adoption that
would be working in the favor of the county using Google Cardboard.