Reducing barriers to change when adopting educational technologies
By Heather P. Belbin
Introduction
When a new innovation is introduced to an organization, there are generally issues that hinder its adoption. Furthermore, the introduction of a new technology into an educational setting presents a plethora of barriers that impede change in the organizational setting.
When a new innovation is introduced to an organization, there are generally issues that hinder its adoption. Furthermore, the introduction of a new technology into an educational setting presents a plethora of barriers that impede change in the organizational setting.
An early adopter. Image credit: Derrick Bostrom
|
Earle (2002), Kirkland and Sutch (2009) and Joseph (2012) refer to two orders of barriers to change: first order barriers are macro-level barriers that exist within the greater organization, whereas second-order barriers are those that exist within the individuals directly affected by the change, such as the instructors and their students.
Examples of first-order barriers include financial limitations, organizational politics, lack of quality training, poor infrastructure and lack of access to the new technology. Examples of second-order barriers include the instructors’ general reluctance to commit to a new technology, lack of confidence in their technical abilities or aptitudes, as well as their own prejudices and perceptions about the new technology. |
Of course, the specific types of first- and second-order barriers to change will not look exactly the same across a variety of educational institutions. Some institutions require teachers and learners to use a variety of technology, such as Word, Powerpoint, Excel, LMS, and online HR systems on a regular basis, resulting in a staff that has a basic comfort level with different types technology. Other institutions, such as poorly funded public schools, might not have usable technology available to its teachers and students. In these situations, it may be easier for most administrative tasks, such as attendance, lesson planning, grades and HR tasks to be done on paper. Of course, this is not to say that a large number of staff and students at such an institution would not be comfortable with different technologies; it is likely that many use much more technology at home than at work in these situations.
However, educational institutions that require a minimal use of technology from their staff and students can result for some teachers and learners without access to or interest in technology outside of work, to get by with very few technological skills. One cannot assume that individuals who will be affected by the new technology are, in fact, technologically proficient at all. According to the Center for American Progress (2009), only 17 out of 50 states in the US require schools to test the technical proficiency of grade-school teachers prior to hiring.Therefore, in institutions that do not require such screening, it is entirely possible for teachers will low levels of competence, comfort and interest in technology to get hired. These individuals may present even greater challenges when a new technology is introduced simply because they are technological laggards to begin with. In other words, they may feel so far behind that they simply cannot fathom becoming proficient in the new technology. Therefore, second-order barriers are very real and must be addressed.
Minimizing First-Order Barriers
In order to facilitate the adoption of a technology, organizations must first address first-order barriers. Infrastructure issues, such as lack of wireless access, lack of a computer lab and limitations on bandwidth must not be ignored. Also, issues within the curriculum itself that could make the technology more of an obstacle than a tool could make or break the adoption of the innovation. If barriers within the organization can be removed, such as increasing bandwidth, upgrading electrical systems, and updating curriculum, it should be done before the investment is made in the technology. If certain barriers cannot be removed, then only technology that is minimally affected by such barriers should be selected.
One key in terms of infrastructure is consistency. In many educational institutions, instructors and/or students often use more than one classroom or computer lab. If a technology is being introduced in several classrooms or throughout the institution as a whole, the setup should be similar from one classroom to another. Equipment and accessories should be in the same place, login procedures and operating systems and should be the same. (Butler and Sellbom, 2002) Equipment should be in similar working order from one room to another. If the technology requires wireless internet access, all locations should have similar signal strength.
When purchasing a technology, organizations must select carefully. Purchasing a new technology for the wrong reasons can spell disaster. For example, if an educational institution finds itself with a budget surplus at the end of the fiscal year, they may be tempted to purchase a new technology without having a plan for how it is to be used. Buying the technology first and then trying to figure out how it can be used is akin to an individual purchasing a new vehicle on a whim without thinking about if he needs it, where he will park it, if he needs a special license to drive it and how much it will cost to maintain, just because he have the money in the bank. Therefore, in order to obtain the best technology to fit the needs of an organization, these needs must first be defined. In other words, institutions must first identify where an innovation is needed and specifically what they need the innovation to accomplish.
In the same vein, institutions must be careful to look at factors other than cost when selecting a new technology. In public institutions where such purchases are often made by calling for tenders, this can be a challenge as the policy may be to accept the lowest bid. However, a points system, where bidders are awarded points based on a variety of attributes, including cost, might have a better outcome.This is not to say that the cheapest alternative will not be effective; it is simply to say that the cheapest, out-of-the-box models may lack the bells and whistles that will make it a pleasure to used and therefore assist in the adoption rate. Reliability is key. A technology that fails to work as it should on a regular basis will not be successfully integrated into the day-to-day lives of instructors and students. ( Butler and Sellbom, 2002)
Reducing Second-Order Barriers
Once first-order barriers have been dealt with, the organization can look at solutions to second-order barriers. To begin, organizations must set specific goals for the new technology. (Kirkland and Sutchm 2009) Otherwise, in the future, how will one know if the innovation was a success? When the goals are set, an organization can begin searching for a technology that will meet these goals. SECTIONS/ACTIONS, or another assessment tool should be applied to ensure that no key areas are omitted.
Next, educational organizations should communicate the specific goals of the new technology with those who will be affected. Honesty is important, as all involved should leave the conversation with a clear view of why the technology is needed, what the organization wants it to do, and what the limitations of the technology are.
Organizations must get a clear snapshot of the individuals who will be affected by the new technology. (Earle, 2002), (Kirkland and Sutch, 2009) They must find out, formally or informally, which sectors or individuals are the most and least technologically proficient. They must also find out which technologies most individuals used either at home or at work. Once the organization has a clear picture of the individuals involved, individuals could be grouped into advanced, moderate, or beginner categories. Individuals in each group could be tasked with different roles in the adoption process in order to make the most of the talents already available. For example, individuals who are identified as advanced (the early adopters within the institution) could be used as champions, mentors or informal trainers for others. (Kirkland and Sutch, 2009) Advanced individuals who are not afraid of technology could be given ample time to pilot with the new product prior to launching it to the organization as a whole. These individuals could be quite valuable during what Everett Rogers describes as the persuasion phase of the adoption; by demonstrating the value of the new technology to their peers, they would provide rich and pragmatic examples of the relative advantage of the technology to others in similar situations. (Rogers, 1983) They could also give their peers an opportunity to observe them using the technology, one of the perceived attributes of the innovation. (Rogers, 1983)
In addition to the technologically advanced individuals, the moderate and beginner groups have specific needs and talents that must be addressed. Those with moderate technological skills and interest are the early majority of the institution. They will be the ones that will make or break the adoption of the innovation. They must be given considerable access to the champions, extensive opportunity for practice and, simply put, ample time to adopt and integrate the technology for themselves. (Kirkland and Sutch, 2009) and (Rogers, 1983).
The beginners are the late majority, or, in some cases, the laggards of the institution. They will need a large amount of guidance, coaching and encouragement to get out of the gate. Some may even require basic computer training before they can be introduced to the new technology. This being said, the institution must recognize that this group will tale considerably longer to adopt the technology. (Kirkland and Sutch, 2009) and (Rogers, 1983) It must also accept that some individuals may reject it outright. In other words, this group should never be used before the advanced and moderate level individuals to pilot a brand-new technology as the result will likely be a significant failure.
Finally, organizations should look outside their own walls for additional peer support. Personal learning networks, defined as a group “where individuals within institutions create informal networks with peers inside or outside these networks.” (Kirkland and Sutch, 2009). This could be as simple as networking via email with other institutions who have adopted, or who are in the process of adopting the same technology. Similarly, graduate students of educational technology could be used as mentors to instructors affected by the adoption of a new technology. This would provide teachers with timely feedback and assistance, thereby increasing their levels of comfort with the new technology. (Franklin et al, 2001)
Conclusion
It is not likely that an organization could ever remove all barriers to adopting a new educational technology. Even if it were possible, it would likely be a poor use do resources to do so. However, the literature available to instructional technologists and others working in the education and training fields has a plethora of solutions to reduce those barriers that are the most significant for the organization at hand. Neither first- nor second-order barriers can be ignored as a group; both intrinsic and extrinsic realities must be considered before a new technology can be successfully adopted.
REFERENCES
Butler, D and Sellbom, M. (2002) Barriers to adopting technology for teaching and learning. Retrieved from http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/eqm0223.pdf
Center for American Progress (2009) Leaders and Laggards: A State-by-State Report Card on Educational Innovation. Retrieved from http://cdn.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/issues/2009/11/pdf/leaders_and_laggards.pdf
Earle, R. (2002) The Integration of Instructional Technology into Public Education: Promises and Challenges. ET Magazine 42(1)
Franklin, T., Turner, S., Kariuki, M., and Duran, M. (2001) Mentoring overcomes barriers to technology integration. The Journal of Computing in Teacher Education 18(1). Retrieved from http://www-personal.umd.umich.edu/~mduran/te18126fra.pdf
Joseph, J. (2012) The barriers of using education technology for optimizing the educational experience of learners. The Online Journal of New Horizons in Education 3(2). Retrieved from http://www.tojned.net/pdf/v03i02/v03i02-06.pdf
Kirkland, K and Sutch, D. (2009) Overcoming the barriers to educational innovation. Retrieved from http://archive.futurelab.org.uk/resources/documents/lit_reviews/Barriers_to_Innovation_review.pdf
Rogers, Everett M. (1983) Diffusions of Innovations, Third Edition. New York: The Free Press. Retrieved from http://teddykw2.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/everett-m-rogers-diffusion-of-innovations.pdf
