Analysis of Tech Diffusion in an Educational setting
Kris Felstead – Chris Gould – Matt Grabinsky
The article chosen for analysis is called “Technology in the classroom: Increased software transforms learning arena” and focuses on how digital technology changes our learning environment.
When one looks at the digital landscape it is hard to measure the impact (positively or negatively) it will have on a learning environment. The article states “technology is impacting the way professors teach and students learn” (Cervantes, 2013) but doesn’t provide a framework for analysis other than general observation. We have chosen to evaluate this “progress” though the use of three frameworks. These frameworks are Ely’s Conditions of Change, Kurt Lewins’ Force Field Analysis and Dr. Ruben Puenteduras’ SAMR model. Each one of these constructs allows us to analyze the success of technology implementation in the learning environment from a different lens. This will not only provide a measuring stick for success but to identify best practices in the implementation process.
The article discusses change in California State Fullerton University through the use of three technologies now embedded in the classroom curriculum. The first technology discussed is the iClicker that allows students to engage in class through the use of question and answer polls and user response questions. This allows the professor to engage the class on a new level by integrating the responses into the presentation rather than stopping and waiting for students to raise a hand and respond. This ”on demand” information processing allows for a new level of interactivity previously unavailable in traditional linear delivery. This change in process can be vetted through Ely’s conditions of Change and the rationale becomes clear when overlaid with the framework (Ely, 1999).
The first condition that must exist is “dissatisfaction with the status quo”. California State identified that the current “sage on the stage” model must be augmented with other types of interaction. The next hurdle is to make sure that the entire Faculty implementing this project has the “sufficient knowledge and skills” to implement a technology such as the iClicker. Once these conditions have been satisfied the university had to develop a distribution method to get the technology to the students. They decided to sell the iClicker through the book store and on many occasions with the bundled textbook. The key element of this step is to ensure the “availability of the resource” to allow students to acquire the device and participate in the classroom. “Time” is the next challenge for the university because the curriculum delivery must be revisited and modified to allow for the new level of technological integration. The “reward” component can be as simple as increased productivity or improved resources though the use of this technology. “Participation” is one of the key elements in this article as it states “about 1700 students are registered in courses and 1,100 iClickers have been sold by the bookstore” (Cervantes, 2013). This demonstrates the initiative is being well received by the students validating the change made by Faculty. In order to continue the success with the iClicker the Administration and Faculty will have to continue to “commit” to this level of technological implementation. This must be nurtured by “leadership” to keep supporting these initiatives and to support it both emotionally and financially. Ely’s framework has validated the change but to realize continued success, participation, commitment, time and resources will have to be addressed on a continual basis with the reward being a new level of technological implementation.
Kurt Lewins’ Force Field Analysis looks at the technological implementation through a different lens. The concept of restraining forces and driving forces underlay’s this framework and the balancing act that either promotes or restrains progress. The article discusses the use of Aplia as a resource to augment the students learning substituting the traditional text with the course management system (Cervantes, 2013). This allows students to go online to work on assignments, review course information and check grades in a digital environment that supports the learning goals.
Restraining forces for California State when implementing Aplia would be the network infrastructure, support, and cost to the students. Although it provides an alternative to a traditional textbook; if the materials don’t support the courses learning outcomes the resource loses its usefulness. It also needs to have easy acquisition of material and an Instructor that uses the resource effectively. Driving forces like the ability to access information from anywhere in a digital format, positive environmental impact (digital text), new levels of technological integration with marks and testing available, and student resources linked to the text all point to the motivation of the university to change the model for many of their courses.
The analysis of the Force Field identifies some challenges but overall points to a stronger need for change and validates the decision to move forward with the implementation of Aplia it he classroom (Lewin, 1943). As the need for more dynamic material outweighs the benefits of a standard text, California State University is likely to see many more courses adopt a similar model in technological integration.
Another technology being used by the university is WileyPLUS that acts as a roadmap for learning goals in the course curriculum. It aids in learning and studying material so the students can better prepare to engage in the course material at a higher level than previously possible. Using the SAMR framework it is evident that the highest level of the technological change for success has taken place (Puentedura, 2013).
Other males fighting with different cardiovascular disease notice learningworksca.org cialis from canadian pharmacy less effective results of this medication on the Internet. You can try quit smoking patches sildenafil pill and drink fruit juices for example. It is not necessary or advisable to go out and buy a bunch of over-the-counter vitamin supplements in order to achieve your goal of doing sex for than average time. cialis in uk online It is a online levitra no prescription safe choice for consumers after proving itself on the market since 1998.
Level one is straight substitution of a technology in which WileyPLUS was introduced. This is the introduction of the new tool replacing old process in learning. Level two is the augmentation of the process and adds new functionality not previously available WileyPLUS allows the user to use the resource to reach a higher level of learning than just reading supplementary material. Level three is the modification of process and is centered on task redesign. In this example its around how the individual studies the information and introduces a new process to the old read and memorize formula for understanding content. The fourth level is the redefinition of the process through the use of the technology. Old standards for learning material have been redefined to remove the constraints of traditiontal learning. The technology becomes transparent and enhances the user to a new level of task redefinition not previously possible before integration.
The analysis of this implementation points to a favourable redefinition of process for students but not without challenges. One student identified WileyPLUS as something they “really didn’t like at first, but the made a few changes here and there – and now I really enjoy using it” (Cervantes, 2013). This reminds us that even though process can validate change it will take time for full integration and redefinition of process. In the case of California State University this change in process in the delivery of course content is paying dividends in student success. This transformative environment through technology is a good example of learning environments that are becoming increasingly collaborative in nature and enhance learning on many levels.
It is our belief that technology is going to afford new learning opportunities and experiences as it advances. Now it’s up to us as educators to evaluate the process using the appropriate framework and implement it to realize these new learning opportunities.
References:
Cerventas, K. (2013). Technology in the classroom: Increased software transforms learning arena. Retrieved from http://www.dailytitan.com/2013/03/enterprise-electronics-in-the-classroom
Ely, D.P. (1999) New Perspectives on the Implementation of Educational Technology Innovations. 1-12.
Lewin K. (1943). Defining the “Field at a Given Time.” Psychological Review. 50: 292-310. Republished in Resolving Social Conflicts & Field Theory in Social Science, Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association, 1997.
Puentedura R. R. (2013) Ruben R. Puentedura’s Weblog. Retrieved from http://www.hippasus.com/rrpweblog