The transcript for my multimedia presentation of the GradeCam innovation.

1. THE INNOVATION – GRADECAM
by
Milton B. Francis
Defense of the Innovation
Selected innovation
Innovative technology has impacted the world ever since technology was first launched.
In this, the 21st century, that impact is constantly making a debut in different technology
launches. The innovative technology tools: GradeCam, iPad, and the SMART Response
interactive response systems identified previously, are just three examples of this 21st
century technology innovation that is sweeping the global village. As a technology
scholar practitioner, one has to get involve in this process of technology innovation. This
involvement may include choosing an innovative technology tool that should make an
impact on the world, in particular the technology world that I choose to call the global
village. Of the three innovative technology tools identified earlier, my selective
innovation would be the GradeCam.
This technology tool is a student-performance scanner that can be used in the classroom
by both teachers and students to grade multiple choice tests. The GradeCam image-
recognition software works with a camera to grade tests from bubble forms and to
generate statistics and reports on student performance to the teacher’s electronic
gradebook, all within a second. This quick feedback helps the teacher to be able to use
the time gained, if these tests were graded manually, to focus on the evaluation of the
assessment, thereby planning for the needs of different students within the classroom.
This technology device would certainly be welcomed by the classroom teacher, and by
extension the school, as time saving is an important factor of the education system.
Selection justification
Technology innovations are good, and they serve the purpose for which they were
designed, however, not all technology innovations can be adoptable, as there are factors
which hinder their acceptance. In the case of the iPad innovation identified among the
three innovations mentioned, costs and utilization play an important part in this decision-
making. According to The Journal: Transforming education through technology, teacher
input is important in this decision-making, and one teacher stated ‘the iPad definitely has
a place in the classroom, but with the devices set to launch at $499 to $829 a piece, she
worries they could be cost-prohibitive’. This is not the case with the GradeCam, as
according to EdNET Insight: Insight networking success, they would only cost $1.50 per
student per year online. Yes, this bit of technology instrument can be used online as well.
Offline usage includes a camera costing approximately $98, or the teacher may use the
document camera, if one exits, or the built-in computer camera. The offline accessibility
also includes a district license fee of $2 per student for the software and a school site
license one-time fee of $3 per student. Overall, this would be more affordable than the
iPad.

2. With respect to utilization, all the teachers would be able to use the GradeCam, as all
teachers are involved in testing. For the iPad, only some subject area teachers would
benefit. For example, the teachers of language arts (English Language) would benefit
more than the mathematics teachers, due to the nature of the respective subjects, as the
iPad is more of a reading tool, with less, if any, numerical data and solution.
The selection of the Gradecam over the SMART Response interactive response systems
is due to its easy accessibility and simplicity. The teachers, some of whom are not
versatile in the use of technology, would, at this time, appreciate the GradeCam over the
SMART Response interactive response systems. After becoming proficient in the use of
the GradeCam, with its simple assessment and grade recording, then the SMART
Response interactive response systems could be introduced. This set of systems,
produced by the organization that created the popular SMART board technology tool, is
much more detailed in assessment and provide more needed information for the teacher
about the students.
Pre-Diffusion of GradeCam
Generation of the ideas for Innovation
NEED: Teachers at my school are inundated with work:
Preparation of unit plans, daily lesson plans, daily homework assignments, unit tests,
quizzes, internal mid semester examination, internal end-of-semester examination.
The grading of homework assignments, tests, quizzes, internal examinations, and the
State’s external or Regents examination, administered at least twice per year.
After school tutoring
Student smart goals meetings
Review and analysis of student work after each test and internal examinations
Monthly bulletin boards postings
Monthly classroom inter-visitations
RESEARCH
Research idea – Tami Porter, cofounder of GradeCam Inc., was a teacher who felt
overwhelmed by the grading of students’ work. It demanded much of her time and
attention. One day, on her way home from the school where she taught, she stopped by
the grocery. Watching the clerk scan her purchases, she thought, “Wouldn’t it be
wonderful if teachers could grade and record student work that easily?” She did not
realize, at the time, that the idea for GradeCam had just been born.

3. Research background – The research on the benefits of formative assessments seems to
be convincing. For example, after a 10 year review of approximately 250 studies on
assessments, British professors Paul Black and Dylan William reported: “Firm evidence
shows that formative assessment is an essential component of classroom work and that its
development can raise standards of achievement. Indeed, we know of no other way of
raising standards where such a prima-facie (evidence-based) case can be made.”
DEVELOPMENT: GradeCam was developed over years of collaboration with
technology experts experienced in designing productivity tools. It came directly out of
the classroom experience of the husband and wife team of educators, Tami and Rick
Porter. They worked with a team of computer programmers led by their son, to develop
GradeCam, and put it through extensive field testing. In diagnosing the problem with
GradeCam during its development, the developers were careful in using the camera that
is compatible with the software. Not all kinds of camera can be used. GradeCam is
geared to classroom teachers, with the intention of easing their excessive work load and
improving instruction through timely feedback
COMMERCIALIZATION: The GradeCam package consists of a 300 DPI scanner with
a special built in camera, GradeCam score credit labels, and GradeCam bubble sheets. In
addition, the user must include a computer (desktop/laptop), and the downloaded
GradeCam software. GradeCam uses the Internet, technology conferences and
expositions, as well as word of mouth as its main tools for marketing. This word of
mouth is in the form of feedback for those teachers who have experienced its use. The
innovation is distributed through software vendors. The product is relatively inexpensive
when compared with other almost similar products on the market.
The Innovation-Decision Process
The husband and wife team, Tami and Rick Porter, founders of GradeCam, has been
developing educational products for over ten years. GradeCam was conceived in 2003.
by Tami Porter, former middle school teacher. She, along with her husband and their
son, fully developed GradeCam over the next three to four years. The goal of GradeCam
is to improve education by reducing the stress of everyday teaching. This has been the
organization’s theme, as it developed GradeCam, as can be seen in the timeline below.
Timeline Chart/Table
GradeCam can reduce the stress that the teachers at my school are undergoing. It is a
solid and reputable organization that can be trusted. It will also offers free support to the
teachers if they are having trouble using it. The teachers will be convinced, and will
appreciate the gesture, if given the opportunity. Performance of the students will
improve overtime, as the teachers will now have more time to be engaged in tutoring, a
badly needed focus, at this time. As I have been emphasizing, GradeCam is relatively
inexpensive, so its affordability will not harm the school’s budget. So, members of the
school board, I implore you to take up the offer and adopt this innovation for, not only

4. the teachers, but the school, knowing that in the long run we will all benefit as the main
stakeholders of this prestigious institution.
It’s worth mentioning that since 2008, Rick Porter has been CEO of the GradeCam
Corporation, operating out of California. On January 13, 2010. the company launched
GradeCam Online, a new Internet GradeCam product. Also, later that year, August 24,
2010, the company formed a strategic partnership with Califone, another technology
company that has been in existence since 1947, to promote informed instruction.
Members of the board, as I mentioned above, Internet access is now available with the
use of GradeCam. Therefore, if you are wavering, still not knowing whether to adopt the
offline innovation, the online one is now available, and the cost is extremely inexpensive.
It only cost $1.50 per student per year. Now, that’s what I called a bargain.
GradeCam S-Curve
In the process of diffusion, the innovation adoption experience a phase that relates to the
statistical shaped bell-curve, except that, emphasis is not placed on the latter part of this
curve. Rogers (2003) said ‘the time element of the diffusion process allows us to classify
adopter categories, and to draw diffusion curves’. He further said of these curves, ‘when
plotted over time on a frequency basis, the cumulative numbers of adopters plotted,
results in an S-shaped curve’.
The GradeCam software experienced that curve, in that when it was first introduced to
the commercial market in 2003, at technology conferences, it did not shown signs of
growth or gratified recognition. The first sign of innovation, being adopted by innovators,
was at the beginning of 2004. The rate of innovation was slow then, and that affected the
sales of the GradeCam software during the year 2004 – 2005. During the ensuing years,
sales started to increase at a rapid rate, as not only innovators were involved in its
promotion, but the early adopters of the innovation saw the need for the GradeCam in the
classroom.
That rapid rate decreased the following year, 2007 – 2008, but there was still and increase
in the sale of the software, as the early majority became the latest adopters. To date, the
software has achieved approximately 80% of its innovative adoption, as the late majority
adopters now see the need to use the software. Before the laggards get involved in this
diffusion process, which would signify the timely death of the technology, the original
inventors, introduced a modified version at the start of 2010.
However, before the laggards get involved in this diffusion process, which would signify
the timely death of the technology, the original inventors, introduced a modified version
at the start of 2010. This new version is called GradeCam Online, where teachers can
now grade the papers at a reduced cost than the previous ‘offline’ version. I suppose this
modified version is now a new product which may go through the diffusion phase once
more, but probably at a faster rate, knowing that the product was prior introduced.
The Perceived Attributes/Rate of Adoption of GradeCam

5. The GradeCam innovation was targeted at the education sector, particularly the
classroom environment. As the inventors of the product said ‘GradeCam is a student-
performance scanner for the classroom’. (GradeCam website). The innovators and early
adopters of this innovation were, indeed, the classroom teachers.
Rogers (2003) identified five perceived attributes/strategies of innovation: Relative
advantage, compatibility, complexity, trialability, and observability. He associated each
of these attributes with the rate of adoption of an innovation by the social system. The
GradeCam inventors use some of these attributes in diffusing the innovation. The
strategies that are most persuasive in convincing the adoption of the GradeCam are
trialability and compatibility.
The trialability attribute is used when GradeCam Inc. participates in technology
conferences and expositions. Triability, according to Rogers, is the degree to which an
innovation may be experimented with on a limited basis. Attendees at the conferences
and exhibitions are given the opportunity to test the innovation. Rogers also said that a
personal trial can dispel uncertainty about a new idea, and that trialability by a social
system is positively related to the rate of adoption of the innovation. GradeCam is no
exception, as was seen on the Sigmoid function/curve, commonly called the S-curve, of
last week’s wiki update.
In addition to the perceived attribute of trialability, the GradeCam inventors also use the
compatibility attribute in trying to persuade potential adopters of the innovation.
Compatibility, according to Rogers, is the degree to which an innovation is perceived as
consistent with the existing values, past experiences, and needs of potential adopters.
Educators value their job, so whatever instrument that can be introduced to improve
performance is welcoming. For example, the task of grading student work can be tedious
and time consuming, so the adoption of an innovation that can lessened the burdensome
load, would be heart warming to educators. According to the innovation’s inventors,
GradeCam does that and more. It not only grade papers, but it is a tremendous teaching
tool, as well as a powerful paper-management device. (About GradeCam). However, not
all educators would readily accept this innovation as soon as it is made public. Some
educators would wait for a long time before adoption, or would even reject the idea.
These educators are who Rogers called laggards.
In my opinion, the laggards of the GradeCam innovation are the educators who are not
versatile in the use of technology, and who are more traditional in the future perspective
of the route of education. To best assist this group of adopters, training programs and/or
professional development should be held, so as to promote the use of technology as a tool
for educational improvement. Also, these innovators should be encouraged to attend
technology conferences and expositions to get a first-hand view and knowledge of the use
of technology and its impact on education. Simultaneously, at these conferences and
expositions, the trial use (trialability) of GradeCam could be done.
Having leveled off at approximately 80% of the niche market (as can be seen on the S-
curve of last week), the GradeCam innovation needs to include the perceived attribute
observability, if it wants to meet the critical mass in the education sector. Why
observability? The diffused innovation needs to be widely observed by other members of

6. the education sector who knows nothing of its existence. According to Rogers, the
observability of an innovation, as perceived by members of the social system, is
positively related to its rate of adoption. With this attribute in place, GradeCam could
increase its potentiality within the classroom, thereby diffusing in depth in the education
sector.
GradeCam’s Critical Mass and Change Agents
As I continue my proposal to the Board of Directors in considering the adoption of the
GradeCam innovation, the focus will now be on the ‘point’ of critical mass and on some
of the key personnel in the organization. However, before addressing these two
scenarios, the Board might ask the question: If we were to adopt GradeCam, which
method do you think would be a better choice; a centralized or a decentralized approach?
I think that a centralized approach would be much better, because that would cost the
organization much less. Instead of distributing a GradeCam to each teacher after the
adoption of the innovation, the concentration of the equipment could be done
departmentally. For example, the six teachers of the mathematics department would
receive one instrument that would be used by only the members of that department. There
would be no exchange among departments, unless it’s absolutely necessary. To oversee
the operation of the GradeCam from the time it was adopted to the update of its latest
software, I would recommend some key personnel to the position of change agents.
A change agent is who Rogers (2003) called ‘an individual who influences clients’
innovation-decisions in a direction deemed desirable by a change agency’. This agency,
ladies and gentlemen of the Board, is our organization, or better yet, our school. In
addition to myself, as the technical expert on this innovation, I would include the
principal, the main leadership of the institution. Both of us will lead the way in this
adoption, as we aimed at fulfilling the duties of a change agent. Rogers also identified the
roles of this agent, and listed them as follows:
1) The need to change clientele
2) Establishing an information exchange relationship
3) Diagnose problems
4) Create intent to change in the client
5) Translate intent into action
6) Stabilize adoption and prevent discontinuance
7) Achieve a terminal relationship
But, how can these seven roles effect positive social change within this school?
First, the faculty, especially those who are not technology proficient, would be trained in
the use of the innovation spearheaded by GradeCam Inc., the intention of which is to
make the adoption process real. Secondly, as change agents, we would share the latest
information about the innovation with the faculty on a regular basis, as soon as it is made
known to us by innovation’s creators. Thirdly, recognizing and diagnosing the issues or
problems of the faculty with respect to the innovation will be one of our priorities.
Fourthly, while processing the faculty’s adoption and use of the innovation, our intention
would be to transform the entire faculty as to the usefulness and necessity of GradeCam.

7. Fifthly, our intention would be made known to these users of the innovation, as they see
the real necessity of it. That is, the purpose of not just grading tests, but analyzing them
for student evaluation, which, in turn, would drive lesson planning, making it more
manageable than before. All these would be done, so as to stabilize the adoption of
GradeCam, preventing a discontinuity. Finally, this whole process would really not be a
success if new change agents are not emerged from the adopters. These new change
agents would then play our role, as new teachers join the faculty. This change agent
transformation would terminate the relationship of GradeCam adoption between the
principal, me, and the new change agents, formerly the adopters of GradeCam.
Members of the Board, as you have seen on the Sigmoid function, or the S-curve, the
GradeCam has already achieved its point of critical mass within the social strata of the
education system. This occurred between the years 2005 and 2006, at 10%, when a steep
rise in the curve began. At this phase of the innovation, over 10% of the ‘early majority’
of classroom teachers exposed to the innovation, started to adopt it.
The Organizational Adoption
Innovation-Decision Types
Adopting the GradeCam as an individual would be more than welcoming, but I am not
the only one who will be utilizing this software, so it would be better if the organization
adopts it.
Organization innovation-decisions are two-fold; it may be done collectively or
authoritatively
Rogers said ‘collective innovation-decisions are choices to adopt/reject an innovation that
is made by a consensus among the members of a system, and authority innovation-
decisions are choices to adopt/reject an innovation that are made by a relatively few
individuals in a system who possess power, high social status, or technical expertise’
Innovation Champion
The GradeCam innovation is expected to be adopted by the authority of the organization,
the Board of Directors, who is being advised by me, the instructional technologist of the
organization, who is also their technology expert.
As the individual with the highest technology position in the organization, I am
automatically the innovation champion.
An innovation champion, according to Rogers, is an individual who throws his/her
weight behind the innovation, thus overcoming indifference or resistance that the new
idea may provoke in an organization.
Reasons for Adoption
Increase the speed with which the teachers grade tests.
Maintain accurate record of students’ scores

8. Do immediate analyses of student-work
Give immediate feedback to students on their performance
Plan lessons in a timely manner as soon as feedback is given
Plan differentiated lessons that will meet the needs of different students, effectively
Use the time spent on grading test as tutoring hours
Improve and enhance the teachers’ skills in the use of technology
A Win-Win Situation
It behooves you that the adoption of the GradeCam innovation by this organization will
be worthwhile for its continued improvement.
All stakeholders will reap the benefits and success that this innovation will bring to us.