Diffusion of Innovations

Topics: Diffusion of innovations, Innovation, Educational technology Pages: 19 (6587 words) Published: June 27, 2011
The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology – TOJET April 2006 ISSN: 1303-6521 volume 5 Issue 2 Article 3

DETAILED REVIEW OF ROGERS’ DIFFUSION OF INNOVATIONS THEORY AND EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY-RELATED STUDIES BASED ON ROGERS’ THEORY Ismail SAHIN Iowa State University The process of adopting new innovations has been studied for over 30 years, and one of the most popular adoption models is described by Rogers in his book, Diffusion of Innovations (Sherry & Gibson, 2002). Much research from a broad variety of disciplines has used the model as a framework. Dooley (1999) and Stuart (2000) mentioned several of these disciplines as political science, public health, communications, history, economics, technology, and education, and defined Rogers’ theory as a widely used theoretical framework in the area of technology diffusion and adoption. Rogers’ diffusion of innovations theory is the most appropriate for investigating the adoption of technology in higher education and educational environments (Medlin, 2001; Parisot, 1995). In fact, much diffusion research involves technological innovations so Rogers (2003) usually used the word “technology” and “innovation” as synonyms. For Rogers, “a technology is a design for instrumental action that reduces the uncertainty in the cause-effect relationships involved in achieving a desired outcome” (p. 13). It is composed of two parts: hardware and software. While hardware is “the tool that embodies the technology in the form of a material or physical object,” software is “the information base for the tool” (Rogers, 2003, p. 259). Since software (as a technological innovation) has a low level of observability, its rate of adoption is quite slow. For Rogers (2003), adoption is a decision of “full use of an innovation as the best course of action available” and rejection is a decision “not to adopt an innovation” (p. 177). Rogers defines diffusion as “the process in which an innovation is communicated thorough certain channels over time among the members of a social system” (p. 5). As expressed in this definition, innovation, communication channels, time, and social system are the four key components of the diffusion of innovations. Four Main Elements in the Diffusion of Innovations Innovation Rogers offered the following description of an innovation: “An innovation is an idea, practice, or project that is perceived as new by an individual or other unit of adoption” (Rogers, 2003, p. 12). An innovation may have been invented a long time ago, but if individuals perceive it as new, then it may still be an innovation for them. The newness characteristic of an adoption is more related to the three steps (knowledge, persuasion, and decision) of the innovation-decision process that will be discussed later. In addition, Rogers claimed there is a lack of diffusion research on technology clusters. For Rogers (2003), “a technology cluster consists of one or more distinguishable elements of technology that are perceived as being closely interrelated” (p. 14). Uncertainty is an important obstacle to the adoption of innovations. An innovation’s consequences may create uncertainty: “Consequences are the changes that occur in an individual or a social system as a result of the adoption or rejection of an innovation” (Rogers, 2003, p. 436). To reduce the uncertainty of adopting the innovation, individuals should be informed about its advantages and disadvantages to make them aware of all its consequences. Moreover, Rogers claimed that consequences can be classified as desirable versus undesirable (functional or dysfunctional), direct versus indirect (immediate result or result of the immediate result), and anticipated versus unanticipated (recognized and intended or not). Communication Channels The second element of the diffusion of innovations process is communication channels. For Rogers (2003), communication is “a process in which participants create and share information with one another in...

References: Anderson, T., Varnhagen, S., & Campbell, K. (1998). Faculty adoption of teaching and learning technologies: Contrasting earlier adopters and mainstream faculty. The Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 28(23), 71-78. Bennett, J., & Bennett, L. (2003). A review of factors that influence the diffusion of innovation when structuring a faculty training program. Internet and Higher Education ,6, 53-63. Blankenship, S.E. (1998). Factors related to computer use by teachers in classroom instruction (Doctoral Dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 1998). ProQuest DigitalDissertations. (UMI No. AAT 9831651). Braak, J.V. (2001). Individual characteristics influencing teachers’ class use of computers. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 25(2), 141-157. Carter, C.W. (1998). An assessment of the status of the diffusion and adoption of computer-based technology in Appalachian College Association colleges and universities (Doctoral Dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 1998). ProQuest DigitalDissertations. (UMI No. AAT 9905169). Casmar S.P. (2001). The adoption of computer technology by faculty in a college of education: an analysis of administrative planning issues (Doctoral dissertation, Washington State University, 2001). ProQuest DigitalDissertations. (UMI No. AAT 3025011). Dooley, K.E. (1999). Towards a holistic model for the diffusion of educational technologies: An integrative review of educational innovation studies. Educational Technology & Society 2(4), 35-45. Finley, T.R. (2003). A descriptive study of utilization of technology from a perspective of full-time faculty in Virginia’s higher education teacher-education programs (Doctoral dissertation, The George Washington University, 2003). ProQuest DigitalDissertations. (UMI No. AAT 3083800). Hoerup, S.L. (2001). Diffusion of an innovation: computer technology integration and the role of collaboration (Doctoral dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 2001). ProQuest DigitalDissertations. (UMI No. AAT 3031436). Isleem, M I. (2003). Relationships of selected factors and the level of computer use for instructional purposes by technology education teachers in Ohio public schools: a statewide survey (Doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University, 2003). ProQuest DigitalDissertations. (UMI No. AAT 3124087). Jacobsen, M. (1998). Adoption patterns and characteristics of faculty who integrate computer technology for teaching and learning in higher education. (Doctoral dissertation, The University of Calgary, 1998). ProQuest DigitalDissertations. (UMI No. AAT NQ34679). Less, K.H. (2003). Faculty adoption of computer technology for instruction in the North Carolina Community College System (Doctoral dissertation, East Tennessee State University, 2003). ProQuest DigitalDissertations. (UMI No. AAT 3097072). Light, P.C. (1998). Sustaining innovation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Martin, M.H. (2003). Factors influencing faculty adoption of Web-based courses in teacher education programs within the State University of New York (Doctoral dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 2001). ProQuest DigitalDissertations. (UMI No. AAT 3089087). McKenzie, J. (2001). How teacher learn technology best. From Now On: The Educational Technology Journal, 10(6). Retrieved March 01, 2005, from http://www.fno.org/mar01/howlearn.html Medlin, B.D. (2001). The factors that may influence a faculty member 's decision to adopt electronic technologies in instruction (Doctoral dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 2001). ProQuest DigitalDissertations. (UMI No. AAT 3095210). Parisot, A.H. (1995). Technology and teaching: The adoption and diffusion of technological innovations by a community college faculty (Doctoral dissertation, Montana State University, 1995). ProQuest DigitalDissertations. (UMI No. AAT 9542260). Parisot, A.H. (1997). Distance education as a catalyst for changing teaching in the community college: Implications for institutional policy. New Directions for Community Colleges, 99, 5-13. Rogers, E.M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York: Free Press. Schmidt, D. (1995). Use and integration of computer-related technology in teaching by preservice teacher education faculty (Doctoral dissertation, Iowa State University, 1995). ProQuest DigitalDissertations. (UMI No. AAT 9610982). Seemann, K. (2003). Basic principles in holistic technology education. Journal of Technology Education, 14(2), 28-39. Sherry, L. (1997). The boulder valley internet project: Lessons learned. THE (Technological Horizons in Education) Journal, 25(2), 68-73.
22
The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology – TOJET April 2006 ISSN: 1303-6521 volume 5 Issue 2 Article 3
Slyke, C.V. (1998). Technology cluster innovations: impacts of adding a technology to an existing cluster (Doctoral dissertation, University of South Florida, 1998). ProQuest DigitalDissertations. (UMI No. AAT 9911522). Spotts, T.H. (1999). Discriminating factors in faculty use of instructional technology in higher education. Educational Technology & Society, 2(4), 92-99. Sprague, D., Kopfman, K., & Dorsey, S. (1999). Faculty development in the integration of technology in teacher education courses. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 14(2), 24-28. Stuart, W.D. (2000). Influence of sources of communication, user characteristics and innovation characteristics on adoption of a communication technology (Doctoral dissertation, The University of Kansas, 2000). ProQuest DigitalDissertations. (UMI No. AAT 9998115). Surendra, S.S. (2001). Acceptance of Web technology-based education by professors and administrators of a college of applied arts and technology in Ontario (Doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto, 2001). ProQuest DigitalDissertations. (UMI No. AAT NQ58603). Zakaria, Z. (2001). Factors related to information technology implementation in the Malaysian Ministry of Education Polytechnic. (Doctoral dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 2001).
23
Continue Reading

Please join StudyMode to read the full document

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Diffusion of Innovations Essay
  • Essay on Diffusion of Innovation
  • Essay about Diffusion of Innovations and Compatibility
  • Applying Diffusion of Innovations Theory Essay
  • Essay about Innovation Diffusion, Social Change, and Implications to International Marketers.
  • Diffusion of Inno Essay
  • New Product Adoption and Diffusion Essay
  • Open Innovation Essay

Become a StudyMode Member

Sign Up - It's Free