Facilitating Adoption of Technology in Higher Education

In recent decades, higher education institutions have seen an influx of advances in technology. Advances in personal computing, classroom technologies, and the Internet have made inroads into the teaching, research, and service aspects of higher education. In the past few years, colleges and universities have invested heavily in infrastructure to support the adoption and use of technology (Green, 1999). Despite the investments on technology and technology support in higher education, many argue that technology is not being effectively integrated into teaching and learning (Geoghegan, 1994; Green, 1999). According to a report on technology use on U.S. college campuses, one of the most important issues facing higher education is assisting faculty with “integrating information technology into instruction” (Green, 2007). Computing technology may have increased efficiencies, but examples of instructional technologies that have truly “penetrated the curriculum,” that aid in “illustration and explanation,” or as tools for “analysis and synthesis” of information, are few and far between (Geoghegan, 1994).Oftentimes, information and educational technology professionals are called on to facilitate faculty use of technology. Technology professionals undoubtedly must work to address the many barriers that stand in the way of effective use by faculty of technology for teaching. This article will outline the most commonly cited barriers to technology use by faculty in higher education, present Rogers’ diffusion of innovations model as a framework for understanding technology adoption, and provide vide some practical tips for encouraging use of technology by faculty. While this article focuses on educational technology in general, the barriers, diffusion model, and tips discussed in this article are relevant to any application of educational technology, including distance education.Much research has been conducted to examine why technology has not been adopted more fully by faculty in higher education. This research has highlighted many barriers to adoption of technology. One barrier is the lack of a technology infrastructure (Geoghegan, 1994). A technology infrastructure includes the hardware and software, computer peripherals, networks, classrooms, and facilities that must be available to adequately support the use of a teaching technology. To be adopted for use by faculty, technology must be available, pervasive, nonintrusive, easy to use, and reliable (Brill & Galloway, 2007). The adoption, utilization, and subsequent integration of information technologies by faculty is contingent on providing the necessary, easy to use technology infrastructure.Another barrier is the lack of support for technology by administrators. According to Green and Gilbert (1995), technology infrastructure can be seen as a “black hole” for money that is an easy target for budget cuts. The use(s) of computer-based technologies and the significant financial requirements associated with hardware, software, and infrastructure development continue to be high-stakes considerations for institutions of higher education. Consequently, the importance of technology to the educational mission of many institutions is either overlooked or is not communicated to faculty.A third barrier is the pedagogical issues that arise when technology is adopted and used for teaching. Adopting a technology may require a change in the way faculty have always approached teaching. It may require a revision of curricula or resources, the use of new teaching strategies or activities, or the alteration of some pedagogical assumptions regarding the roles of the teacher and the learner (Geoghegan, 1994).Finally, a fourth barrier to effective technology use is the myriad of other interests and responsibilities that faculty members have. According to Zhao and Frank (2003), competing goals and interests play a large part in faculty adoption of technology. Zhao and Frank (2003) state that faculty adoption of technology is like a complex ecosystem of competing species and that faculty “rationally calculate the costs and benefits” of adopting technology (p. 831). In addition to teaching, faculty members in higher education may be required to research, publish, administrate programs of study or departments, participate on college or campus committees, and participate in public service projects and outreach. Faculty members may just not have the time or interest to learn about new teaching technologies.These barriers to effectively using technology for teaching and learning can be daunting. So, how do information and educational technology professionals effectively support and encourage the adoption and use of technology in spite of these barriers? Rogers’ (2003) diffusion of innovations theory provides a conceptual framework for understanding technology adoption. There are several key components to Rogers’ theory that are particularly relevant to supporting faculty in the adoption and use of technology.According to Rogers (2003), the adoption of an innovation occurs in five stages. These stages are knowledge, persuasion, decision, implementation, and confirmation. In the knowledge stage, an individual is first exposed to the innovation and becomes aware that it exists. During this stage, an individual gathers information about the innovation, learns how it works, and becomes aware of what needs it addresses. During the persuasion stage, an individual forms an opinion and develops an attitude toward an innovation. At this stage, an individual wants to know what are the advantages and disadvantages of the innovation. In forming an opinion of the innovation, an individual will rely on interpersonal communication channels for information. For example, faculty members might rely on the opinions of other trusted faculty members in forming an attitude towards a particular technology tool. During the decision stage, an individual chooses to reject or adopt an innovation. During this stage, an individual will need to try out the innovation on their own or to observe the innovation in trial. During the implementation stage, an individual puts the innovation to use. Finally, in the confirmation stage, an individual seeks to confirm his or her choice to reject or adopt the innovation.Another important component of Rogers’ diffusion of innovations theory is his categories of adopters. Rogers states that individuals can be categorized according to their innovativeness. Rogers categorizes individuals by how likely they are to adopt an innovation and at what point they are likely to adopt it. Rogers’ categories include innovators, early adopters, early majority, late majority, and laggardsInnovators are the first individuals to adopt an innovation. These individuals tend to be venturesome and interested in new ideas. Early majority are the next group to adopt an innovation. Early adopters are an important part of the adoption process because they are the opinion leaders of their group. The next group to adopt is the early majority. The early majority’s location between the very early and the relatively late make them an important link in the diffusion process as they help to connect members within the system. After the early majority comes the late majority. These individuals tend to be skeptical of an innovation and wait to adopt until most everyone else has already done so. Finally, laggards are the last group to adopt an innovation. Laggards tend to be traditional and suspicious of innovations and change altogether.Two other important concepts of Rogers’ theory include change agents and communication channels. Change agents influence others in their decision to adopt an innovation. Change agents help develop a need for change, establish information exchange relationships, diagnose problems, create in users an intent to change, translate an intent to change into action, stabilize adoption, and prevent discontinuance, and achieve terminal relationships with users so that they become self-reliant. Early adopters generally act as change agents within a group (Rogers, 2003). Information and instructional technologists can also be change agents.Communication channels are also an important component in the adoption process. A communication channel is the “means by which messages get from one individual to another” (Rogers, 2003, p. 18). Individuals often seek out information through interpersonal channels when trying to determine the advantages and disadvantages of an innovation. According to Rogers, most individuals evaluate an innovation based on the subjective evaluations and opinions of near peers rather than on the evidence of scientific research conducted by experts.Rogers’ diffusion of innovation’s theory provides a useful framework from which to design, promote, and deliver support for faculty. Information and educational technologists should facilitate technology adoption by identifying opinion leaders, leveraging communication channels, and recognizing and addressing the individual needs and expectations of faculty members. There are many practical ways in which technology professionals can encourage faculty use and adoption of technology by building on Rogers’ model.Zvacek (2001) recommends that technology professionals seeking to encourage faculty use of technological innovations should interact and be involved constantly with faculty and should work within the “regular” forces of the institution. For example, Zvacek states that technology professionals should “reconsider any activity that receives little support from faculty opinion leaders” (p. 42). Technology support professionals should instead work with opinion leaders to build credibility and inspire confidence as a way to encourage widespread use of technology by mainstream faculty.Additionally, it is important to make connections between technology and current practices and values of the institution. For example, technology professionals should discuss research findings supporting instructional uses of the technology, present examples from other institutions where strategies have been used, and discuss how these strategies can complement values of the groups (Zvacek, 2001). According to Brand (1997), it is also important to link technology and the educational objectives of the institution. Technology support professionals should encourage faculty to think first how the technology fits into their curriculum. Faculty must be convinced of the relevance of the technology to what they do in the classroom if they are to be convinced to change their current practices (Brand, 1997). Consequently, it is important to anticipate the classroom change that will accompany adoption of the technology.Technology professionals should also be sure to stay aware of communication channels. It is the role of the technology professional to connect faculty with each other and to shine a spotlight on innovative and effective uses of technology. For example, technology professionals should link faculty members to each other who are working on similar technology-related projects (Zvacek, 2001). They should recognize specific faculty members when they’ve done something innovative with technology, perhaps by publishing this recognition in a department, college, or campuswide newsletter. Faculty advisory boards or special interest groups designed to give faculty a voice in technology planning or support faculty use of technology area also helpful (Zvacek, 2001). Technology professionals should foster the support from administration for innovative uses of technology by faculty. Administrators must be sure to communicate a vision for educational technology and do more than just pay lip service to the importance technology has in the educational experience provided by the institution (Brand, 1997).Because some faculty members may be less inclined than others to adopt a technology, it is also important to tailor support and professional development opportunities to the needs and expectations of individual faculty members. According to Brand (1997), professional development is most effective when it offers flexibility). For example, offer a series of workshops that encourage “small bites” of technology integration for faculty who don’t have the time to attend (Zvacek, 2001). Follow up with individuals one-on-one after large group activities to ensure that all questions are answered. Provide training and support at different times to meet the varying schedules of faculty, and provide different kinds of learning opportunities.If technology is to be used effectively for teaching and learning, technology professional must be cognizant of the barriers that inhibit its adoption. Rogers’ diffusion of innovations model provides a conceptual framework for understanding the adoption process and the elements, such as the individual innovativeness, change agents, and communication channels that can be used to facilitate technology adoption.