an exploration of massive open online course adoption using the diffusion of innovation theory

TOWARD A NEW UNDERSTANDING OF MOOCS:

AN EXPLORATION OF MASSIVE OPEN ONLINE COURSE ADOPTION USING THE DIFFUSION OF INNOVATIONS THEORY

Mitzi Lewis, Ph.D. Pam Morgan, Ph.D. Midwestern State University 35th Annual Southwest Popular/American Culture Association Conference Pedagogy & Popular Culture 4: New Technologies IV – Digital Footprints February 20, 2014

LINK TO PRESENTATION

http://bit.ly/swpaca14-mooc

TO MOOC OR

NOT TO MOOC

Source: https://secure.flickr.com/photos/hatm/5704123809

Source: https://secure.flickr.com/photos/aliciagriffin/2904408803

Sources: www.commdev.ohio.edu/News_events/conferencesplash books.simonandschuster.com/Diffusion-of-Innovations-5th-Edition

DIFFUSION “the process by which (1) an innovation (2) is communicated through certain channels (3) over time (4) among the members of a social system” Rogers, Everett M. Diffusion of Innovations. 5th ed. New York: Free Press, 2003. Print.

WHAT DOES THE LITERATURE TELL US?

A literature review of the diffusion of innovative teaching and learning practices in higher education revealed that the change model that “dominated” the papers reviewed was the diffusion of innovations theory (Smith 178)

Smith, Karen. "Lessons Learnt from Literature on the Diffusion of Innovative Learning and Teaching Practices in Higher Education." Innovations In Education & Teaching International 49.2 (2012): 173-182.

LESSONS LEARNED (SEE HANDOUT) •  Senior staff need to support an innovation for it to spread

effectively

•  Innovation is time consuming and takes time to embed •  Staff and students must be adequately skilled to engage

with the innovative practice

•  Innovations that sit well within a specific context spread better

•  Supportive networks can facilitate the diffusion of innovative practices

•  Institutional infrastructure needs to be in place to support the innovation (Smith 174-178)

Smith, Karen. "Lessons Learnt from Literature on the Diffusion of Innovative Learning and Teaching Practices in Higher Education." Innovations In Education & Teaching International 49.2 (2012): 173-182.

TOP 10 DISSEMINATION MISTAKES (SEE HANDOUT) •  We assume that evidence matters in the decision making of potential adopters. Innovations of

unknown effectiveness and of known ineffectiveness often spread while effective innovations do not. Evidence is most important to only a subset of early adopters and is most often used by them to reject innovations. Solution: Emphasize other variables in the communication of innovations such as compatibility, cost, and simplicity.

•  We substitute our perceptions for those of potential adopters. Inadequate and poorly performed formative evaluation is common as experts in the innovation topical domain engage in dissemination. Solution: Seek out and listen to representative potential adopters to learn wants, information sources, advice-seeking behaviors, and reactions to prototype innovations.

•  We use innovation creators as innovation communicators. While the creators of innovations are sometimes effective communicators, the opposite condition is much more common. Solution: Enable access to the experts, but rely on others whom we know will elicit attention and information-seeking by potential adopters.

•  We introduce innovations before they are ready. innovations are often shown as they are created and tested. Viewers often perceive uncertainty and complexity as a result. Solution: Publicize innovations only after clear results and the preparation of messages that elicit positive reactions from potential adopters.

•  We assume that information will influence decision making. Information is necessary and can be sufficient for adoption decisions about inconsequential innovations, but for consequential innovations that imply changes in organizational routines or individual behaviors, influence is typically required. Solution: Pair information resources with social influence in an overall dissemination strategy. (slightly adapted from 509)

Dearing, James W. “Applying Diffusion of Innovation Theory to Intervention Development.” Research on Social Work Practice 19.5 (2009): 503-518. 22 Jan. 2014

TOP 10 DISSEMINATION MISTAKES (SEE HANDOUT) •  We confuse authority with influence. Persons high in positional or formal authority may also be

regarded as influential by others, but often this is not the case. Solution: Gather data about who among potential adopters is sought out for advice and intervene with them to propel dissemination.

•  We allow the first to adopt (innovators) to self-select into our dissemination efforts. The first to adopt often do so for counter-normative reasons and their low social status can become associated with an innovation. Solution: Learn the relational structure that ties together potential adopters so that influential members can be identified and recruited.

•  We fail to distinguish among change agents, authority figures, opinion leaders, and innovation champions. It is unusual for the same persons to effectively play multiple roles in dissemination into and within communities and complex organizations. Solution: Use formative evaluation to determine the functions that different persons are able to fulfill.

•  We select demonstration sites on criteria of motivation and capacity. Criteria of interest and ability make sense when effective implementation is the only objective. But spread relies on the perceptions by others of initial adopters. Solution: Consider which sites will positively influence other sites when selecting demonstration sites.

•  We advocate single innovations as the solution to a problem. Potential adopters differ by clientele, setting, resources, etc., so one innovation is unlikely to fit all. Solution: Communicate a cluster of evidence-based practices so that potential adopters can get closer to a best fit of innovation to organization prior to adaptation. (slightly adapted from 509)

Dearing, James W. “Applying Diffusion of Innovation Theory to Intervention Development.” Research on Social Work Practice 19.5 (2009): 503-518. 22 Jan. 2014

TO MOOC OR NOT TO MOOC “Given the ever-changing world of technology, how might the Innovation-Decision Process be streamlined for universities and individual faculty members in order to avoid overload?” (Kardasz 63) “What guidance can be provided to individual faculty or higher education administrators about how to think about whether and how to implement MOOCs in their organizations?” (Jona and Naidu, “Call for Papers: Special Issue”)

Kardasz, Sara M. "What Are The Best Approaches For Encouraging the Diffusion of a New Instructional Technology Among Faculty Members in Higher Education? A Look at Eportfolio Use at Stony Brook University." Journal of Educational Technology Systems 42.1 (2013): 43-68. Jona, Kemi, and Som Naidu. “Call for Papers: Special Issue on Massively Open Online Courses (MOOCs).” Distance Education. Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group. 2013. Web. 26 Jan. 2014.

Slightly adapted from Rogers, Everett M. Diffusion of Innovations. 5th ed. New York: Free Press, 2003. Print.

Focus of decision-making criteria

Source: https://secure.flickr.com/photos/49889874@N05/5907238032

MOOC ATTRIBUTES

Relative advantage Compatibility Complexity Trialability Observability

Rogers, Everett M. Diffusion of Innovations. 5th ed. New York: Free Press, 2003. Print.

RELATIVE ADVANTAGE

•  Definition: the degree to which the new idea is perceived to be an improvement over the idea it supersedes

•  What would a MOOC be superceding at your institution?

•  Typical dimensions: •  economic profitability •  social prestige


RELATIVE ADVANTAGE: ECONOMIC PROFITABILITY

•  What resources would be needed to support MOOC adoption (including implementation and maintenance; think about partnering, design, selection, transferability, assessment, and accreditation) at our institution?

•  What resources could be made available to support MOOC adoption?

•  What additional resources could be sought to support MOOC adoption?

RELATIVE ADVANTAGE: ECONOMIC PROFITABILITY

•  What would be the return on investment of these resources?

•  What is the level of risk for this investment?

•  Would there be a economic cost related to not participating in a MOOC (e.g., lost opportunity; lost potential enrollment, SCH; etc.)?

•  Would the required resources change if MOOC participation was delayed?

RELATIVE ADVANTAGE: SOCIAL PRESTIGE

•  What effect would MOOC participation have on the image of our institution as perceived by faculty? Staff? Students? Parents? Board members? Donors? Legislators?

•  Would there be a social prestige cost related to not participating in a MOOC (e.g., perception of not keeping up)?

RELATIVE ADVANTAGE AND OVERADOPTION •  Occurs when an innovation is adopted even

when experts would recommend not adopting.

•  Why?

•  Allowing attractiveness of one perceived attribute to overrule all other perceived attributes (e.g., allowing social prestige considerations to overshadow other considerations)

•  Not enough knowledge about innovation •  Not able to predict consequences of adoption


COMPATIBILITY

•  Definition: the degree to which the new idea is perceived to be consistent with potential adopters’ needs, past experiences, and existing values


compatibility perceived uncertainty

COMPATIBILITY: VALUES AND BELIEFS

•  What are stakeholders’ values and beliefs regarding the format of class instruction? Is online instruction viewed as inferior, equal, or superior to in-person instruction?

•  What are the values and beliefs about professor and learner roles in the education process?

•  To what degree would MOOC adoption be supported by or conflict with these values?

COMPATIBILITY: PAST EXPERIENCES

•  What past experiences of the institution are related to MOOCs? (e.g., distance education, LMS, etc.)

•  How are they similar?

•  How are they different?

COMPATIBILITY: NEEDS

•  Are there perceived needs regarding the format of instruction and learning?

•  Does the format of instruction and learning need to change?

•  What partnerships would be needed to successfully implement a MOOC at our institution?

COMPLEXITY

•  Definition: the degree to which the new idea is perceived as relatively difficult to use and understand


COMPLEXITY: TECHNICAL

•  What level of technical expertise is needed to successfully adopt a MOOC (e.g., learning how to use a new delivery system)?

•  What level of technical expertise currently exists?

•  If there is a gap, what would be needed to bridge the gap?

COMPLEXITY: PEDAGOGICAL

•  What level of pedagogical expertise is needed to successfully adopt a MOOC (e.g., learning how to plan learning activities for the new delivery system)?

•  What level of pedagogical expertise currently exists?

•  If there is a gap, what would be needed to bridge it?

TRIALABILITY

•  Definition: the degree to which the new idea can be experimented with on a restricted basis


TRIALABILITY

•  Is it possible to try out a MOOC on a limited basis? In other words, could a pilot test be run? If yes, who would run the pilot test?

•  Is there flexibility in the implementation of the MOOC? In other words, can MOOC adoption be customized to better fit the institution’s needs?

TRIALABILITY AND CHANGE

•  Innovations are almost never a perfect match to an organization

•  Successful innovations are often redefined, restructured, or reinvented to become a better fit (may or may not be possible or desirable at this stage)


Source: https://secure.flickr.com/photos/mathplourde/8620174342

OBSERVABILITY

•  Definition: the degree to which the results of the new idea are visible by others


OBSERVABILITY

•  What can we learn from other institutions’ use of MOOCs, especially institutions similar to ours?

•  Consider both successful and unsuccessful adoptions

•  May be easier to find success stories than failed stories


FACULTY INPUT IS CRITICAL

•  Cannot be an afterthought—needs

to be forefront in the conversation

•  How to best seek this input? •  Depends on your institution’s culture •  Committee? •  Survey?

POSSIBLE SURVEY ITEMS AND RESPONSE CHOICES

a)  strongly agree b)   agree c)  neutral d)   disagree e)  strongly disagree f)   need more information before I can decide (please indicate

what information is needed in “Comments/remarks” section)

Comments/remarks

Learners participating in MOOCs can achieve the same learning outcomes as learners participating in face-to-face classes.




Comments/remarks

[My institution] should pilot a MOOC.




Comments/remarks

If MOOC development was an option, I would consider participating.


a)  monetary compensation b)   counting as research/creative activity toward tenure and

promotion c)  course release d)   time involved e)  level of training and support

Comments/remarks

The following attributes would affect my choice of whether to participate (please check all that apply):

Source: https://secure.flickr.com/photos/aliciagriffin/2904408803

QUESTIONS? COMMENTS?

SUGGESTIONS?

Contact info: Email: [email protected] or [email protected] Twitter: @mitzilewis