Disha NEET Physics Guide for classes 11 and 12.pdf
Technology’s Achilles Heel
1. Technology’s Achilles Heel:Technology’s Achilles Heel:
Achieving High-QualityAchieving High-Quality
ImplementationImplementation
Research Paperby Gene E Hall (2010)
Presented by Sukma Putra – Leading Change in the
Digital Age
1
2. Presentation OutlinePresentation Outline
Introduction
The metaphor of the ‘implementation bridge’
Four research based constructs (Levels of Use;
Innovation Configurations; Stages of Concern;
Change Facilitator Style)
Discussion
Conclusion
2
3. Technology educators and school staffs are
frequently challenged to accomplish high levels of
implementation
“The hardest thing about technology is not selling
them on it. It is getting them to use it!” Phil H, as
cited in Hall, p.231
“By developing a new form or process does not
guarantee that it will be widely used” (Cuban’s,
1986)
Introduction
3
4. “An exciting array of technology resources is available
to today’s teachers and classrooms, however, how
each is used and the extent of use by teachers and
students varies dramatically.” p.231
“There is also a gap between students’ use of
technology outside the classroom (MP3 players and
soc-med) and what they do in the classroom (e.g.
printing docs).” p.232
“Many promising technologies are widely available, but
the Achilles heel is a lack of understanding about what
is involved in helping teachers to fully implement and
integrate their uses.”p.232 4
5. “Development of a promising technology does not
guarantee that it will achieve widespread use.” p.232
5
6. Evaluation of Technology InnovationEvaluation of Technology Innovation
Four simple question (innovation disseminated) p.232
1. Is it being used?
2. How well is it being used?
3. What factors are affecting its use/nonuse?
4. What are the outcomes?
The Diffusion of Innovation model (Rogers, 2003) is one
way of understanding change. This model accepts
that not everyone will adopt the innovation at the
same time, some are quick, whereas others
deliberate and delay. p.232
6
7. “The challenge of accomplishing sustained and
widespread integrated uses of technology is the
metaphorical equivalent of providing a bridge to
facilitate teachers and schools progressing across a
bridge.” p.235
Providing an implementation bridge will result in more
frequent and higher quality use for teachers and
schools.
7
9. Four Research Based ConstructFour Research Based Construct
Levels of Use (LoU)
This provides operational definition of three
distinguishable ways that an individual or group can
be a nonuser and five ways and individual or group
can be users. p. 236
Innovation Configurations (IC)
Developers should describe their ideal configurations
clearly and in operational terms. Example on p.240.
9
10. Four Research Based ConstructFour Research Based Construct
(cont.)(cont.)
Stages of Concern (SoC)
This provides a construct and measures for
understanding the personal side of change from
beginning to the end of a change process
Change Facilitator Style (CFS)
This address the importance of administrator leadership
10
11. DiscussionDiscussion
1. From the four research based constructs, which
one is the most difficult to be implemented in your
context? Why?
2. Do you have similar or different strategy used as a
technique to achieving high quality implementation
in your school? What can be done to facilitate
further implementation?
3. In terms of the leadership in your
school/organisation, what are the implications of
applying changing facilitator style (CFS)?
11
12. ConclusionConclusion
Currently, many education technology scholars and
practitioners are engaged with some of the most
promising and interesting innovations.
The real issue is not with the technology innovations,
but more likely on under appreciating the challenges of
implementation.
The needs are so high for schools to improve student
outcomes and the promises so powerful with integrating
uses of technology that the challenges of
implementation must be overcome.
12
13. ReferenceReference
Hall, G. (2010).Technologies Achilles heel: Achieving
high-quality implementation. Journal of Research on
Technology in Education. 42(3), pp. 231-253.
http://blog.flurry.com/?Tag=Usage%20Statistics
13
Notas do Editor
“ This paper begins with the assumption that various technology innovations have been developed and that there is interest in achieving widespread and appropriate use.” p.232
These are not useful models to use in schools for various reasons: • Who makes the decision to adopt the innovation (teachers or administrators?) has an impact on the rate and quality of the adoption • Becoming skilled in a new technology takes time and usually training • New infrastructure may be required • Adoption of the new technology “is a process, not an event”
Four Refined Questioned When change is accepted as a process requiring the equivalent of an implementation bridge, four simple questions introduced and can be refined and made more nuanced: How can the change process be facilitated to achieve high levels of implementation in classrooms and across a school? What factors and approaches can be applied for achieving widespread use? What is the extent of implementation with each individual and school? How do outcomes vary with extent implementation? The answer is the strategies on next page
To describe the current state of each implementer. The LoU of each implementer should be measured, then related to student outcomes How closely do the practices of each implementer match the intended use?“what they are doing and which components of the innovation are being used can range from exact replications of what the developer had in mind to a practice that is unimaginable to the developer
Stages of concern “ The emotional part of change often is neglected, with resulting arousal of unnecessary resistance to innovation”p.243 Studies show that “if there is appropriate change support and time (three to five years), there will be progression across the different SoC”“However, there is no guarantee that this will happen” p.244 CFS Leadership makes a difference. Teachers do not work in isolation, theyare part of a bigger organisation.“Factors within the school can significantly affect implementation success” p.245.“Perhaps the most significant school-level factor affecting teacher implementation success is the leadership role the principal plays”p.245. Three common styles: • Initiators – strong set of ideas about what their school should be like – a vision – and will support innovations that they strongly believe in. Provide information about outcomes to win them over. • Managers – follow rules and control resources and organise schedules to support. Provide clear budget proposals and detailed timelines when approaching. • Responders – listen to the concerns of their staff. They want everyone to be happy and get along, will try new things, but provide little support