Diffusion of Technology Innovations

Iterative Thoughts on Interate: The Secret to Innovation in Schools

/ Catherine Cabiness-Atkinson, Ed.D. / Leave a comment

NOTE: This blog post was created with the assistance of Gemini.

I’d like to take a moment to address the persistent challenge of technology integration that “sticks”. All too often, promising edtech initiatives fail to achieve long-term impact — leaving schools with underutilized resources, frustrated faculty, and wasted instructional time (to the detriment of student learning).

Justin Reich, in his book “Iterate: The Secret to Innovation in Schools,” proposes a paradigm shift away from large-scale, one-time implementations towards a model of continuous, incremental improvement. This iterative approach emphasizes the value of small, manageable experiments, which allows for real-time adaptation and refinement based on observed outcomes. This methodology acknowledges that technological change is a dynamic process, requiring flexibility and responsiveness to evolving needs.

An easy way to visualize what this model of continuous, incremental improvement might look like is to use the Deming Cycle: Plan-Do-Study-Act (https://deming.org/explore/pdsa/).

(Image created with Canva)

The key here is to focus on small-scale change*. For example, instead of pushing for school-wide adoption of an edtech product or tool, encourage a small group of teachers to pilot that tool in their classrooms, AND give them enough time to use that tool with their students. Gather feedback from both the teachers and students about the challenges, benefits, next steps, etc., of using that tool for teaching and for learning (yes, I am purposely differentiating the two). And then have the teachers reconvene to discuss the data/feedback and refine as needed. Then start the cycle again.

*To be clear, the small-scale change needs to address a problem or challenge that teachers and students are facing. So, you need to begin by having teachers come together to share challenges they are facing and then narrow it down to one they would like to address first. However, identifying a problem isn’t as easy as it sounds. I will explain in a follow-up post.

Flipped Learning with AI

/ Catherine Cabiness-Atkinson, Ed.D. / Leave a comment
Student uses AI at home to research a topic.

I’ve been doing quite a bit of thinking about AI and its role in education.

I’ve read my share from the nay-sayers, cautiously optimistic users, as well as those who are leading the charge with AI adoption in the classroom. I also have some insight into how the private sector is viewing AI, including those in the cryptospace. To be clear, I am not professing to be an expert in AI — I am very far from that. But I am well-versed with practical experience in how teachers can harness the power to technology to make learning meaningful and relevant for students.

Now, what I’m going to be posting here are just my thoughts which will likely change and/or be refined over time as the conversation on technology tools and AI continues to evolve. So here goes…

Remember flipped learning?

I had the wonderful opportunity to see Jonathan Bergmann speak about how to flip your classroom back in 2012-ish. What I gained from that session (besides his very informative book) was the idea that I could have my students watch mini-video lectures (no more than 9 minutes) at home, take notes, and then bring them back to class where we could apply what they learned. They did the mundane (but very important task) at home, and in class they got to actively apply what they learned with the assistance and collaboration of their peers along with my guidance.

Having students watch those short videos at home and take notes served multiple purposes:

  • Students could work at their pace ✅
  • Students could determine where and when they wanted to watch the video ✅
  • I gained about 15-20 minutes back in instructional time because I didn’t have to wait for all of my students to copy my notes down before we could move on to the application phase ✅

It was a win-win-win situation.

Now here is what I’ve been thinking about. There have been so many conversations about the benefits, challenges, and negatives when it comes to AI use in the classroom — in particular, I think the main challenge rests with AI use in the classroom itself. Meaning, students are using AI to do their work for them, including providing answers to questions that they should be trying to work through themselves. And if students are allowed to use AI while in class, I don’t see how teachers can prevent any of that happening.

But what if we took the flipped lesson approach?

What if we encouraged students to use AI at home to research a topic and/or use it as a thought-partner for generating an idea for a project AND THEN when they returned to class the very next day…they share their findings with their peers and/or collaborate on a project or activity without any AI assistance. Meaning, no access to technology. Students have their notes that they may or may not have taken when using AI at home but nothing else. This way, they have to internalize what they gleaned from their AI use at home in order to apply it in class the next day.

Here is an example…

The lesson topic is the Five Themes of Geography. Instead of reading the definitions of the Five Themes of Geography in their textbook (boring!), students have two options: (1) they can watch my flipped videos on the Five Themes of Geography and take notes or (2) they can use AI as a thought-partner or tutor to learn the definitions of the Five Themes and take notes. Students who choose the AI option will have parameters to help them create prompts so that they don’t go down a rabbit hole.

Regardless of which option they choose, when they come back to class, students will have a developing understanding of the Five Themes of Geography that they will then apply. Students would work together to draw and identify personal examples that demonstrate their understanding of Location, Place, Human-Environment Interaction, Movement, and Region before we apply that learning to our upcoming units in the following days.

Students apply their learning in class the next day with their peers.

Now, to be clear, AI may not provide the most relevant or most accurate definitions and examples for the Five Themes of Geography (e.g., ChatGPT 4o provided so-so results, Gemini offered better definitions and examples). But I think that’s okay because when students come back to class the next day, they’ll get to have those conversations with their peers and who knows what other teachable moments may come up?

In this scenario, I see AI as being beneficial for several reasons:

  • Student voice and choice — they can choose to watch teacher-created videos or use AI to help them learn particular concepts ⭐️
  • Students can engage in a conversation with AI to drill down further or to expand their scope of exploration (this wouldn’t be the case with a teacher-created video) ⭐️
  • Teachers don’t necessarily have to record videos as students would engage with the AI as a tutor (this would save teachers time because, let’s face it, recording a video using a document camera to do notes can be quite time-consuming) ⭐️
  • Students can see that AI is a tool for learning ⭐️

This brings me to the end of my thoughts on Flipped Learning with AI (for now). But I’m sure I’ll have more to share as I continue to marinate on AI in education. Stay tuned…

What is Diffusion?

/ Catherine Cabiness-Atkinson, Ed.D. / 2 Comments

Paper.JHU Sketchnotes.43

Diffusion. It’s the means by which ideas and objects are adopted and adapted into a new social system.

Rogers’ (2003) diffusion of innovation theory is not new to me. I first heard about it during my masters program when considering how best to approach teachers (and administrators) when it came to technology integration and use. Admittedly, I did not carefully consider all of the components from his model when trying to convince my colleagues that technology could not only make their lives easier but also would aid in the learning process of their students.

Fast forward eight years.

Putting together an intervention to address a problem of practice found within my context meant that I needed to take a closer look at the barriers that prevented individuals from adopting a new innovation. In this case, the individuals in question are teachers (my colleagues) and the innovation is the change to instructional practices to reflect meaningful learning with technology.

It is not easy to convince teachers to change. But I liked the approach from Simon Sinek’s TED Talk that focused on the why before considering the how and then the what.

This way of communication makes total sense. In order for people to change, they must understand the why of that change. Why is the change necessary? Why do they need to change? Why now?

My intervention is currently underway at my school site. Next week, nine teachers will participate in a day-long professional learning opportunity that will begin with the why. On that day, I will begin with the question: Why is it important to consider how technology can support meaningful learning for student?

In reading the Liao (2005) study, I have to admit that I chuckled at the thought that participants considered Angel LMS to be in any way shape or form to be user-friendly. Power School Learning (formally Haiku Learning) is user-friendly (this is the LMS that my school uses). Having said that, the conclusion from that study is promising in that as long as the technology is user-friendly, potential adopters do not need to have “moderate to high level[s] of knowledge and attentiveness to technology” (Liao, 2005, p. 13).

Good to know.

So this is where I am at the start of my intervention:

  • I have a user-friendly LMS.
  • I have teachers with varying levels of technology knowledge, skills, and efficacy.
  • My pretest measure includes their perception of the ease of use and usefulness of technology (Venkatesh, 2000).
  • I have several opinion leaders who are assisting with my intervention as head coaches (Rogers, 2003)
  • I have time–in fact, I have a whole year for the intervention. My district and principal are supportive like that.
  • I have a semi-controlled social system comprised of teachers from several different disciplines who are committed to the same goal–to leverage technology to support meaningful learning for students (Rogers, 2003).

Though I cannot say with certainty, I am hoping that my intervention–Peer-to-Peer Coaching–supports collective innovation-decision making. But I’m wondering, is it possible to determine the type of innovation-decision at this point in my intervention or is that something that comes out during data analysis?

References

Ashley, S. R. (2009). Innovation diffusion: Implications for evaluation. Knowledge Utilization, Diffusion, Implementation, Transfer, and Translation: Implications for Evaluation, 124, 35–45. doi:10.1002/ev.312

Liao, H.A. (2005). Communication Technology, Student Learning, and Diffusion of Innovation. College Quarterly, 8(2). Retrieved from http://collegequarterly.ca/index.html

Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York, NY: Free Press.

Venkatesh, V. (2000). Determinants of perceived ease of use: Integrating control, intrinsic motivation, and emotion into the technology acceptance model. Information Systems Research, 11, 342–365. doi:10.1287/isre.11.4.342.11872